\ 


mm 


X 


///  the  Matter  of  the  Complaint  against  Egbert  C.  Smyth  and 

others,    Professors  of  the    Theological  Institution  in 

Phillips   Academy,  Andover. 


The  Andover  Defence. 


DEFENCE    OF    PROFESSOR    SMYTH;     ARGUMENTS    OF 
PROFESSOR  THEODORE  W.   DWIGHT,   PROFESSOR 
SIMEON      E.     BALDWIN,     HON.     CHARLES 
THEODORE   RUSSELL,    AND    EX- 
GOVERNOR  GASTON  ; 

EVIDENCE   INTRODUCED    BY  THE   RESPONDENTS; 

Dec.  28,  2g,  30,  1886; 

TOGETHER   WITH 

THE   STATEMENTS    OF    PROFESSORS  TUCKER,    HARRIS, 
HINCKS,   AND   CHURCHILL; 

Jan.  3,  1887. 


.5    <,>*'-•» 


BOSTON  : 
CUPPLES,    UPHAM,    AND    COMPANY, 

Z\\t  ©IB  Corner  J3oofestarE, 

283  Washington  Street. 
1887. 


0 


h^ 


CONTENTS. 


PAGE 

I.    Professor  Dwight's  Argument 5 

II.  Evidence  introduced  by  Professor  Baldwin       .        .  92 

III.  Professor  Smyth's  Defence 97 

IV.  Testimony  of  Newman  Smyth,  D.D.         ....  181 
V.    Testimony  of  Professor  Harris 184 

VI.    Testimony  of  Professor  Hincks 187 

VII.    Testimony  of  Professor  Tucker 189 

VIII.    Professor  Baldwin's  Argument 191 

IX.  Hon.  Charles  Theodore  Russell's  Argument      .        .  209 

X.    Ex-Gov.  Gaston's  Argument 256 

XI,    Statement  of  Professor  Tucker 272 

XII.    Statement  of  Professor  Harris 284 

XIII.  Statement  of  Professor  Hincks 300 

XIV.  Statement  of  Professor  Churchill       ....  307 


Mil???? 


1      >       ,       '        1)      >       J 


Before  the  Board  of  Visitors.     In  the  Matter  of  the  Charges 
against  Egbert   C.  Smyth  and  others^  Professors^  etc. 


PROFESSOR   DWIGHT'S   ARGUMENT. 

To  the  Reverend  and  Honorable  Board  of  Visitors  of  Andover 
Theological  Seminary : 

This  is  an  extraordinary  case  in  many  of  its  aspects.  I 
call  your  attention  in  the  first  place  to  the  mode  in  which  it 
has  been  presented  to  your  Board  by  the  self-constituted 
accusers  of  the  Professors. 

In  doing  this  I  refer  to  nothing  outside  of  the  papers  be- 
fore your  Honorable  Board. 

Mode  of  Presenting  the  Case. 

In  a  paper  dated  July  23,  1886,  four  gentlemen,  viz.,  J.  W. 
Wellman,  H.  M.  Dexter,  O.  T.  Lanphear,  and  J.  J.  Blaisdell, 
presented  a  paper  to  your  Board  making  so-called  "  charges  " 
against  five  Professors  in  the  Andover  Theological  Seminary, 
whom  they  named.  They  stated  in  this  paper  that  they 
were  constrained  "from  a  sense  of  duty"  to  bring  complaints 
against  Professors  Smyth,  Tucker,  Churchill,  Harris,  and 
Hincks.  After  setting  tliese  complaints  out  at  some  length, 
one  of  them,  J.  W.  Wellman,  signed  his  name  as  trustee  of 
the  seminary,  and  the  others,  viz.,  Messrs.  Dexter,  Lanphear, 
and  Blaisdell,  signed  their  names  as  a  "  committee  of  certain 
of  the  Alumni." 

I  do  not  propose  now  to  speak  of  the  intrinsic  nature  of 
the  charges    themselves,  on   which    comment  and   criticism 


6 

were  made  before  your  Honorable  Board  at  a  recent  meeting 
on  October  25th.  These  gentlemen,  however,  under  an  order 
or  intimation  made  on  November  8th  by  you,  amended  or 
attempted  to  amend  their  complaint  in  a  way  hitherto  unex- 
ampled in  legal  practice,  apparently  dividing  a  joint  com- 
plaint into  separate  proceedings  against  each  Professor. 
What  was,  however,  worse  than  all,  they  ceased  to  describe 
themselves  as  a  committee,  and  henceforward  appear  in  their 
own  individual  names  by  an  attorney. 

To  this  course  of  proceeding  the  Professors  by  their  coun- 
sel make  and  have  constantly  made  strenuous  objection.  I 
call  particular  attention  now  to  the  evidence  of  duplicity  and 
underhanded  methods  on  the  part  of  these  complainants  in 
having  with  apparent  untruth  described  themselves  as  a 
*'  Committee  of  the  Alumni."  The  object  of  this  description 
apparentl}'  was  to  gain  a  credit  for  their  charges  by  appear- 
ing to  act  in  a  representative  character.  There  was  in  the 
statement  an  implied  suggestion  of  a  meeting  of  certain 
Alumni,  by  whom  they  were  appointed  a  committee.  This 
number  was  shadowy  and  uncertain,  it  is  true,  but  the  state- 
ment that  there  were  Alumni  behind  them  was  calculated 
and,  it  is  believed,  designed  to  make  an  impression  upon  the 
community.  As  it  now  appears,  these  four  men  comprise  all 
the  Trustees  and  all  the  Alumni  who  engineer  this  move- 
ment. If  three  of  these  men  are  a  committee  at  all,  they 
are  self-appointed  —  "a  committee  of  the  whole."  The  men 
asserted  by  implication  to  be  behind  them  are  "  men  in  buck- 
ram " —  like  the  eleven  of  the  immortal  Falstaff,  at  one  time 
formidable  in  their  indefiniteness,  but  now  subsiding  into 
three.  I  say  that  for  such  conduct  these  signers  have  for- 
feited the  confidence  of  all  candid,  truth-speaking  men,  and 
I  add,  with  Prince  Hal,  "  What  slaves  are  ye  to  hack  your 
swords  as  ye  have  done  and  then  say  it  was  in  fight  ?  What 
trick,  what  device,  what  starting-hole  can  you  now  find  out 
to  hide  yourselves  from  this  open  and  apparent  shame?" 
Conduct  like  this  at  the  Bar  would  gain  the  scorn  of  the 
legal  profession.  We  believe  that  before  your  Board  it  will 
receive  the  treatment  it  richly  deserves. 


It  is  unfortunate  for  the  interests  of  the  respondents  that 
in  a  tribunal  like  this  there  are  no  settled  rules  of  practice. 
We  are  driven  to  supposed  analogies  with  other  branches  of 
law  more  or  less  similar.  The  closest  analogy  seems  to  be 
that  of  the  practice  in  the  English  Ecclesiastical  Courts,  or 
in  Admiralty.  In  fact,  Chief  Justice  Shaw,  in  Murdock  v. 
Phillips  Academy^  12  Pickering,  262,  263,  refers  to  the  rules 
to  be  found  in  Burns'  Ecclesiastical  Law. 

According  to  that  case,  these  things  must  concur  before 
your  Board ;  "  1.  A  monition  or  citation  of  the  party  to  ap- 
pear. 2.  A  charge  given  to  him  which  he  is  to  answer,  called 
a  libel  or  complaint.  3.  A  competent  time  assigned  for  the 
proofs  and  answer.  4.  A  liberty  for  counsel  to  defend  his 
cause,  and  to  except  against  the  proofs  and  witnesses.  5.  A 
solemn  sentence,  after  hearing  all  the  proofs  and  answers." 

There  is  absolutely  wanting  in  the  present  instance  the  first 
two  of  these.  There  has  been  no  citation,  and  there  is  in  the 
•proper  sense  no  libel.  What  we  have  to  do  with  at  the  pres- 
ent moment  is  the  libel,  or,  in  more  ordinary  language,  the 
complaint.  This  is  vital,  for  in  the  same  connection  the  court 
in  the  case  cited  from  Pickering's  Reports  says,  on  p.  263 : 
"  These  rules  indicate  the  course  which  must  in  substance  be 
pursued  by  everi/  tribunal  acting  judicially  upon  the  rights  of 
others."  And  this  remark,  by  the  precise  terms  of  the  de- 
cision, includes  proceedings  by  the  Boards  of  Andover  Theo- 
logical Seminary. 

A  "  libel "  implies  three  things :  A  plaintiff,  or  "  promo- 
ter ;  "  a  statement  of  a  cause  of  action,  or  ground  of  proceed- 
ing ;  and  a  defendant,  or  respondent.  One  of  the  fatal  defects 
in  this  proceeding  is  that  there  is  no  legal  representative  of 
the  interests  adverse  to  the  respondents. 

To  define  a  "  libel  "  we  turn  to  the  source  of  information 
indicated  in  the  case  in  12  Pickering,  viz.,  Burns'  Ecclesias- 
tical Law  :  "  A  libel  is  a  declaration  or  charge  drawn  up  in 
writing  on  the  part  of  the  plaintiff,  unto  which  the  defend- 
ant is  OBLIGED  to  answer."  This  statement  of  course  im- 
plies that  there  must  be  both  plaintiff  and  defendant,  and 
that  the  latter  is  required  by  some  rule  of  law  to  answer. 


8 

This  is  not  a  case  in  which  your  Board  can  proceed  of  its 
own  motion  to  a  trial  of  the  respondent. 

There  may  be  cases  in  which  an  ecclesiastical  judge  may 
proceed  ex  officio.  Burns,  however,  says  that  proceedings 
which  touch  freehold,  debt,  trespass,  and  the  like,  concern 
matters  between  party  and  party  (Lond.,  1797,  6th  ed.). 

There  is  substantially  a  freehold  in  the  present  case,  as  the 
Professors  hold  office  during  life,  and  accordingly  have  a  free- 
hold or  life  interest  in  their  office.  This  interest  is  pro- 
nounced by  the  court  in  7  Pickering,  330, 1st  paragraph,  to 
be  a  "  valuable  property."  Even  if  an  ex-officio  proceeding 
were  proper,  it  has  not  been  resorted  to  in  the  present  case. 
The  ordinar}'  method  of  proceeding  by  parties  has  been  se- 
lected. But  this  theory  is  impossible,  for  these  signers  have 
no  interest  in  the  matter  and  cannot  possibly  be  parties 
"  aggrieved."  If  the  case  be  wrongly  conceived,  the  names 
of  the  signers  cannot  be  ignored. 

But  what  is  still  more  decisive  is  that  an  ex-officio  proceed- 
ing is  solely  applicable  to  a  criminal  case.  The  ecclesiastical 
law  follows  the  canon  law  in  this  respect ;  and  the  bishop  or 
his  official  proceeds  "  from  the  mere  office,"  induced  by  pub- 
lic fame  or  the  relation  of  credible  persons  to  inquire  into  the 
innocence  or  criminality  of  persons  within  his  jurisdiction 
(Browne  on  the  Practice  of  the  Ecclesiastical  Courts,  bound 
up  with  Browne  on  the  Civil  and  Admiralty  Law,  1st  Am. 
ed.,  vol.  i.,  pp.  502,  503). 

The  present  case,  however,  is  not  to  be*  regarded  as  a 
charge  of  crime.  It  has  no  resemblance  to  the  ecclesiastical 
case  of  deprivation.  The  object  of  "  deprivation  "  was  not 
to  unseat  a  person  from  a  particular  benefice,  but  to  deprive 
a  clerical  person  of  his  office  as  minister.  Loss  of  a  particu- 
lar benefice  would  follow,  as  well  as  incapacity  to  be  admit- 
ted to  any  other  like  position.  When  Chief  Justice  Shaw, 
in  12  Pickering,  262,  refers  to  "deprivation"  in  ecclesiastical 
cases,  it  is  only  to  show  the  necessary  elements  of  any  prose- 
cution in  a  special  tribunal  like  this,  whether  the  proceeding 
be  criminal  or  civil.  Moreover,  "deprivation"  before  an 
ecclesiastical  tribunal  is  a  breach  of  the  law  of  England  on 


account  of  the  relation  of  Church  and  State.  It  is  termed 
the  "king's  ecclesiastical  law."  There  is  no  ecclesiastical 
law  in  this  sense  in  the  United  States. 

The  subject  of  "  deprivation  "  in  English  ecclesiastical  law 
is  treated  with  fulness  in  Godolphin's  Abridgment  of  the  Ec- . 
clesiastical  Laws,  London,  1680,  title  Deprivation  (p.  306). 
He  reduces  all  causes  of  deprivation  to  three  :  (1)  want  of 
capacity;  (2)  contempt;  (3)  crime.  The  crimes  are  true 
crimes  in  the  ordinary  sense  of  the  criminal  law,  such  as  mur- 
der,  forgery,  and  the  like,  or  the  violation  of  some  statute 
prohibiting  criminal  acts.  The  proceeding  in  the  present  in- 
stance is  not  for  a  crime  in  the  domain  of  criminal  law.  It 
is  impossible  for  this  Board  to  try  a  criminal  case.  At  most, 
this  proceeding  is  for  the  violation  of  a  trust,  which  by  the 
common  law  is  not  criminal,  but  only  the  subject  of  a  civil 
action.  It  has  been  declared  by  one  of  the  signers  to  be  a 
scandalous  violation  of  a  public  trust.  It  will  be  shown  here- 
after, if  it  be  a  valid  trust,  to  be  a  charitable  use  or  trust. 
These  trusts  have  for  centuries  been  supervised,  controlled, 
and  superintended  in  England  by  the  High  Court  of  Chan- 
cery, as  well  as  other  courts  having  equitable  powers.  No 
other  court  has  assumed  jurisdiction  to  superintend  them  or 
to  correct  abuses  in  their  management.  All  trust  law  origi- 
nated with  the  Court  of  Chancery,  and  trusts  still  remain  the 
principal  objects  of  chancery  or  equitable  jurisdiction. 

It  is  a  mistake  to  suppose  that  your  Honorable  Board,  if  it 
has  original  jurisdiction,  represents  simply  the  visitatorial 
power  of  the  common  law.  This  is  a  statutory  tribunal  hav- 
ing powers  beyond  those  conceded  to  visitors  at  common 
law.  One  very  marked  distinction  between  it  and  the  com- 
mon-law visitor  is  this :  your  decisions  are  reviewable  on 
appeal,  while  no  appeal  lies  in  the  case  of  a  visitor.  His  is 
a  domestic  forum.  He  acts  summarily.  This  is  not  the 
case  with  you.  You  must  follow  rules ;  you  must  conduct 
yourselves  as  a  court,  for  so  the  law  of  Massachusetts,  as 
expressed  in  the  statute-book,  as  construed  by  the  Supreme 
Court  in  12  Pickering,  262,  has  provided.  Considered  as  a 
court  or  legal  tribunal,  so  far  as  you  review  the  management 


10 

of  trusts,  your  jurisdiction  is  in  the  nature  of  equitable 
authority. 

Now,  it  is  perfectly  well  settled  that  the  jurisdiction  of 
equity  over  trusts  is  in  no  respect  criminal,  but  purely  civil. 
-A  court  of  equity  is  not  a  criminal  court.  Its  jurisdiction  as 
a  whole  is  purely  civil.  It  is  a  property  court.  Your  power 
to  inquire  into  "  heterodoxy  "  is  not  a  general  power  extend- 
ing to  all  trusts  of  a  charitable  nature.  It  is  for  the  purpose 
of  determining  whether  the  rules  of  a  particular  foundation 
in  Andover  Seminary  have  been  violated,  and  nothing  more. 
The  creed  which  you  examine  need  not  be  in  itself  a  truly 
Christian  creed.  It  is  not  because  it  is  Christian  that  you 
are  reviewing  the  conduct  of  the  respondent.  You  are  sit- 
ting here  because  certain  men  having  money  at  their  com- 
mand long  ago  concluded  to  make  use  of  it  in  a  special  way, 
and  you  are  inquiring  whether  the  trust  that  these  men 
now  dead  imposed  upon  the  property,  so  far  as  it  is  lawful, 
is  being  carried  out  faithfully  by  the  beneficiaries.  That  is 
a  pure  civil  inquiry,  in  the  same  way  as  if  the  trust  had  been 
for  instruction  in  medicine  or  law.  That  would  be  so  if  a 
court  of  equity  in  Massachusetts  were  to-day  engaged  in 
doing  the  same  thing  that  you  are.  Why  should  you  be 
regarded  as  holding  a  criminal  court,  when  the  Supreme 
Court  holding  precisely  the  same  inquiry  for  the  same  pur- 
pose would  be  deemed  to  be  holding  a  civil  court? 

I  cite  the  following  authorities  to  show  that  a  court  of 
equity  has  no  criminal  jurisdiction:  * 

Attorney- General  v.  Utica  Insurance  Co.,  2  Johns.  Ch.,  379. 

Phillips  v-  Stone  Mountain  Railroad,  61  Ga.,  386. 

Life  Association  v.  Beogher,  3  Mo.  App.,  173. 

Davis  V.  American  Society,  75  N.  Y.,  362. 

Cohen  v.  Commissioners  of  Goldshoro,  77  N.  C,  2. 

Cope  V.  District  Fair,  99  111.,  489. 

Moses  V.  Mobile,  52  Ala.,  198. 

Attorney- General  v.  Tudor  Ice  Co.,  104  Mass.,  239,  240. 


11 

Special  reference  is  made  to  the  case  in  2  Johnson's  Chan- 
cery, and  that  of  the  Attorney- General  v.  Tudor  Ice  Co.y, 
supra. 

The  first  of  these  cases  was  decided  at  an  early  day  by 
Chancellor  Kent  while  presiding  in  the  New  York  Court  of 
Chancery.  He  says,  on  p.  378  of  the  report,  "-if  a  charge  be 
of  a  criminal  nature  or  an  offence  against  the  public,  and 
does  not  touch  the  enjoyment  of  property,  it  ought  not  to  be 
brought  within  the  direct  jurisdiction  of  this  court,  which 
was  intended  to  deal  only  with  matters  of  civil  right  resting 
in  equity  or  where  the  remedy  at  law  was  not  sufficiently 
adequate."  The  Massachusetts  case  is  still  more  emphatic. 
The  court  said : 

"  This  court,  sitting  in  equity,  does  not  administer  punish- 
ment or  enforce  forfeitures  for  transgression  of  law ;  but  its 
jurisdiction  is  limited  to  the  protection  of  civil  rights,  and  to 
cases  in  which  adequate  relief  cannot  be  had  on  the  common- 
law  side  of  the  court  or  of  the  other  courts  of  the  common- 
wealth "  (p.  240). 

The  administration  of  trusts  in  equity  is  not,  accordingly, 
a  criminal  proceeding,  though  it  may  perhaps  be  held  to 
assume,  as  a  matter  of  form,  a  criminal  aspect  in  certain  cases 
prosecuted  in  the  name  of  the  Attorney-General.  These 
cases  are  very  rare  in  Massachusetts,  and  do  not  include  such 
cases  as  the  present  (104  Mass.,  239,  240,  244).  The  last 
page  cited  is  particularly  in  point. 

No  support  can  be  derived  for  a  criminal  theory  based  on 
the  doctrines  of  an  information  in  the  nature  of  a  quo  war- 
ranto. That  is  a  proceeding  in  a  court  of  common  law  (not 
equity)  to  inquire  by  what  warrant  a  person  occupying  an 
office  retains  possession  of  it,  and  may  in  case  of  misconduct 
result  in  forfeiture.  It  was  originally  inform  a  criminal  pro- 
ceeding, because  if  the  office  was  forfeited  a  fine  might  be 
inflicted.  It  is  now  unanimously  recognized  b}^  jurists  as  in 
substance  a  civil  proceeding,  and  has  by  statute  been  stripped 
of  all  criminal  aspect  in  a  large  number  of  the  American 
States  as  well  as  in  England.  (See,  in  England,  47  and  48 
Vict.,  c.  61,  §  15,  where  it  is  declared  that  proceedings  in  quo 


12 

warranto  shall  be  deemed  to  be  civil  proceedings  for  all  pur- 
poses ;  N.  Y.  Code  of  Oivil  Procedure,  §  1983,  §  1990;  fol- 
lowed in  many  other  States.)  Moreover,  there  is  nothing  to 
show  in  the  amended  complaint  that  the  present  proceeding 
is  to  obtain  the  forfeiture  of  an  office.  The  quo  warranto^ 
too,  is  in  the  name  of  the  commonwealth  before  a  court  of 
criminal  jurisdiction. 

The  result  is  that  the  present  is  a  civil  case,  and  that  there 
should  be,  as  in  all  other  civil  cases,  a  true  party  to  the 
record,  prosecuting  it  because  he  has  some  interest  in  the 
subject-matter. 

The  course  of  proceeding,  adopted  in  a  New  York  case,  has 
been  approved  in  an  emphatic  manner  by  the  Supreme  Judi- 
cial Court  of  Massachusetts,  in  Murdoch  v.  Phillips  Academy^ 
12  Pickering,  265.  Reference  is  there  made,  with  marked 
approval,  to  the  case  of  the  Dutch  Reformed  Church  in  Alba- 
ny V.  Bradford^  8  Cowen  (N.Y.),  457.  There  the  consistory^ 
consisting  of  the  deacons  and  elders  of  a  church,  made  a  speci- 
fic charge  against  their  minister  to  the  classis,  the  court  hav- 
ing original  jurisdiction  in  such  matters.  The  consistory,  as 
representing  the  church  where  the  minister  was  serving,  had 
an  interest  in  the  question.  It  was  in  substance  the  same  as 
if  the  church  itself  had  appeared  as  complainants,  or  much 
the  same  as  if  in  the  present  case  the  Trustees  of  Andover 
Theological  Seminary  had  in  their  official  capacity  presented 
the  case  before  your  Honorable  Board. 

It  ought  never  to  be  overlooked  that  the  relation  between 
the  Professors  and  Trustees  of  Andover  Theological  Semi- 
nary originated  in  contract.  It  is  not  like  the  origin  of  title 
to  a  public  office,  in  which  there  is  simply  an  appointment, 
and  in  general  no  contract.  How  can  a  dissolution  of  a  con- 
tract justify  a  criminal  proceeding?  Suppose  that  a  similar 
contract  had  been  made  by  a  college  where  there  was  no 
Board  of  Visitors,  and  dissolution  of  the  contract  was  claimed 
in  the  ordinary  courts,  would  there  be  any  criminal  element 
in  the  proceeding  ?  Even  if  the  dissolution  were  for  some 
crime,  the  proceeding  for  dissolution  would  not  be  criminal, 
but  only  for  breach  of  contract. 


13 

There  is  nothing  in  the  remarks  of  the  Supreme  Court  in 
the  case  of  Murdoch,  Appellant,  etc.,  7  Pickering,  330,  opposed 
to  these  views.  The  court  at  this  point  was  discussing  the 
necessity  of  making  the  articles  of  charge  definite  and  partic- 
ular, and  in  enforcing  tliat  requirement  remarked  that,  by 
analogy  to  trials  on  criminal  accusations  in  the  courts  of 
justice  and  the  principles  of  the  constitution,  no  man  can  be 
deprived  of  his  office,  which  is  a  valuable  property,  without 
having  the  offence  with  which  he  is  charged  "fully  and 
plainly,  substantially  and  formally,  described  to  him."  This 
remark  is  by  no  means  equivalent  to  the  assertion  that  a 
proceeding  before  the  Board  of  Visitors  is  a  criminal  pro- 
ceeding. Criminal  proceedings  are  referred  to  simplj'-  as 
sources  of  our  ideas  of  justice,  precisely  as  the  reference  in 
the  same  breath  is  made  to  the  principles  of  the  State  con- 
stitution. 

Moreover,  the  constitution  of  the  State  prevents  you  from 
holding  a  criminal  court.  (See  Art.  12.)  This  provides 
that  no  person  shall  be  deprived  of  his  property  or  estate 
except  by  the  "judgment  of  his  peers  or  the  law  of  land." 
This  phrase  is  uniformly  held  to  guarantee  trial  by  jury  in 
criminal  cases. 

There  should  also  be  mentioned  in  this  connection  a  most 
serious  practical  objection  to  this  proceeding,  if  it  be  right, 
as  we  insist,  to  regard  it  as  of  a  civil  nature.  Suppose  that 
this  proceeding  should  not  be  successful,  what  is  there  to 
prevent  four  other  Alumni  from  instituting  a  similar  proceed- 
ing and  treading  the  whole  ground  over  again  ?  In  regularly 
instituted  suits  between  proper  parties  a  former  judgment  is  a 
bar  to  another  original  proceeding.  This  is  one  of  the  strong- 
est reasons  for  having  formal  parties  upon  the  records  of  the 
court.  But  it  is  an  inflexible  condition  of  the  application  of 
this  rule  that  the  parties  should  be  the  same.  If  four  new 
Alumni  should  proceed,  the  parties  will  not  be  the  same,  and 
the  respondent  may  thus  be  subjected  to  repeated  litigations. 
This  tribunal  should  pause  befoi-e  it  faces  such  consequences. 


14 


The  Chaeges  Considered. 

I  next  proceed  to  consider  the  charges  themselves. 

As  the  matter  now  stands  in  the  so-called  amended  com- 
plaint, there  is  great  uncertainty  prejudicial  to  the  defence  of 
the  respondent.  Does  the  old  "  complaint "  remain?  It  is 
not  expressly  disposed  of.  Is  the  new  one  valid?  If  sOjtwo 
cases  are  pending  before  the  same  tribunal  for  the  same 
cause.  This  we  have  objected  to,  and  the  two  cannot  be 
properly  carried  on  together.  Perhaps  the  amended  com- 
plaint is  a  substitute  for  the  old  one,  and  that  the  validity  of 
further  proceedings  must  now  be  tested  by  that.  We  have  a 
right  to  demand  that  the  court  shall  require  an  election  by 
the  signers  on  which  they  will  stand  ;  and  we  now  demand  it. 

If  the  amended  complaint  be  a  substitute,  we  insist  that  it 
was  not  competent  for  the  signers  to  proceed  as  they  have 
done.  They  have  apparently  assumed  to  divide  the  former 
joint  proceeding  into  five  separate  proceedings.  This  cannot 
be  lawfully  done.  This  rule  has  been  applied  in  equity  in  a 
case  like  the  present,  except  that  the  names  of  the  plaintiffs 
were  divided  instead  of  the  respondents.  The  court  would 
not  hear  the  subdivided  cases  without  the  general  consent  of 
all  parties  interested.  Appleton  v.  Chapeltown  Paper  Co.,  45 
Law  Journal,  Ch.,  276,  decided  by  a  great  judge.  Sir  George 
Jessel,  Master  of  the  Rolls.  Instead  of  assenting  to  the 
division  in  this  case,  the  respondent  has  constantly  objected. 

But  assuming  for  the  moment  that  the  original  case  can  be 
split  into  five  separate  proceedings  against  the  will  of  the 
respondents,  and  that  it  has  been  successfully  divided,  I  now 
reach  the  amended  complaint  considered  as  to  its  subject- 
matter,  and  insist  that  several  cardinal  rules  of  pleading  are 
violated. 

Violation  of  Rules  of  Pleading  as  to  Subject- 
matter. 

I.  The  first  three  charges  are  without  specifications.  They 
are  mere  conclusions  of  law  instead  of  statements  of  fact ;  or 
it  may  be  said  that  they  are  mere  inferences  of  the  signers, 


15 

witlioiit  giving  any  facts  from  which  the  inferences  are  de- 
rived. It  is  true  that  the  expression  "  hereinafter  enume- 
rated "  is  used  in  each  case,  but  that  is  not  enough.  Accord- 
ingly, the  words  "  hereinafter  enumerated  "  in  each  of  the 
first  three  charges  must  be  confined  to  what  is  set  forth  in 
each  charge  by  itself.  The  result  as  to  these  is  that  there  are 
no  specifications  as  to  those  charges.  There  is  no  enumera- 
tion in  connection  with  the  charge.  It  is  required  by  the  sim- 
plest rules  of  pleading  that  each  charge  should  be  complete 
in  itself  (Gould  on  Pleading,  c.  iv.,  sec.  3).  The  rule  is 
there  stated  in  this  form  :  "  In  all  cases  in  which  there  are 
two  or  more  counts,  whether  there  is  actually  but  one  cause 
of  action  or  several,  each  count  purports  itpow  the  face  of  it  to 
disclose  a  distinct  right  of  action,  unconnected  with  that 

STATED    IN   ANY   OF   THE   OTHER   COUNTS  ;    SO  that  upon    the 

face  of  the  declaration  there  appear  to  be  as  many  different 
causes  of  action  as  there  are  counts  inserted  "  (4th  ed.,  by 
George  Gould,  1861). 

Moreover,  if  each  of  the  charges  is  distinct,  it  is  impossi- 
ble and  absurd  to  assume  that  the  same  specifications  and 
quotations  from  the  writings  of  the  Professors  will  prove 
each.  If  the  charges  are  not  distinct,  but  are  mere  idle  rep- 
etitions, then  the  first  three  ought  to  be  stricken  out,  and 
we  ought  to  be  relieved  from  the  trouble  and  expense  of 
contesting  them. 

II.  If,  however,  the  fourth  charge,  with  its  specifications, 
be  not  obnoxious  to  any  criticism  of  indefiniteness  of  a  vital 
nature  (as  we  contend  that  it  is),  still  it  is  clear  that  no  offence 
is  charged  of  which  this  Board  has  original  jurisdiction,  even 
though  it  be  assumed  that  in  certain  cases  the  Board  pos- 
sesses such  jurisdiction.  It  is  not  one  of  the  cases  specified 
in  the  article  from  which  original  jurisdiction  is  assumed  to 
be  derived. 

The  distinction  between  the  plain  original  jurisdiction  of 
the  Trustees  and  the  assumed  jurisdiction  of  this  Board  I 
now  place  in  view  by  extracts  from  the  statutes.  Article  14 
of  the  Constitution  of  the  Theological  Seminary  provides 
that  a  professor  may  be  removed  by  the   Trustees  "  for  gross 


IG 

neglect  of  duty,  scandalous  immorality,  mental  incapacity,  or 
any  other  just  and  sufficient  cause."  Article  20  of  the  stat- 
utes concerning  the  Associate  Foundation  confers  whatever 
power  of  removal  is  vested  in  the  Board  of  Visitors,  in  the 
following  words,  "to  remove  him  (a  professor),  either  for 
misbehavior,  heterodoxy,  incapacity,  or  neglect  of  the  duties 
of  his  office."  A  glance  will  show  that  the  power  of  the 
Trustees  is  broad  and  wide,  while  that  of  the  Visitors  is  spe- 
cific and  restricted.  Of  the  four  instances  named,  only  one 
can  possibly  be  aimed  at  in  these  proceedings.  This  is 
"  heterodoxy." 

The  powers  of  the  Board  of  Visitors  cannot  be  extended 
beyond  those  named,  as  they  form  part  of  the  original  con- 
tract between  the  Trustees  and  each  Professor.  The  Visitors 
have  no  connection  with  that  contract.  They  are  only  to  see 
to  its  observance.  As  we  have  stated,  none  of  these  specified 
grounds  of  removal  can  exist  in  the  present  case  but  "  het- 
erodoxy." "Heterodoxy,"  however,  is  not  charged.  It  is 
only  alluded  to  in  the  fourth  "  charge  "  (marked  IV.),  in  the 
following  indirect  manner :  "  We  charge  that  the  several  par- 
ticulars of  the  'heterodoxy'  of  the  said  Egbert  C.  Smyth, 
and  of  his  opposition  to  the  creed  of  the  Seminary,  and  to 
the  true  intention  of  the  Founders,  as  expressed  in  their 
statutes,  are  as  follows,  to  wit."  This  is  not  a  charge  of 
"heterodoxy."  It  plainly  assumes  that  " heterodoxy  "  has 
been  charged  in  some  prior  paragraph.  On  examining  the 
prior  paragraphs  no  charge  whatever  of  "heterodoxy"  ap- 
pears. 

III.  But  assuming  that  there  is  a  charge  of  "heterodoxy" 
sufficient  in  form,  there  is  a  preliminary  inquiry.  What  is 
"  heterodoxy  "  within  the  meaning  of  the  Founders  ?  Does 
it  mean  a  denial  of  the  principles  of  the  Christian  religion, 
or  simply  a  denial  of  the  doctrines  contained  in  the  particu- 
lar Andover  creed  which  the  Professors  are  required  to 
sign?  Reference  is  now  made  to  the  Associate  statutes,  and 
to  a  Professor  on  the  "  Associate  Foundation."  This  is  a 
highly  penal  charge.  A  Professor's  contract,  made  for  life, 
is   to   be   dissolved   by   a    quasi-ind\c\?i[   proceeding.     These 


17 

"  Founrlers  "  drew  their  statutes  themselves.  The  Profess- 
ors had  nothinoc  to  do  with  them.  The  benefactors,  of 
course,  selected  their  own  words. 

In  such  a  case  as  that,  the  settled  rule  of  law  is  that  the 
instrument  and  its  interpretation  is  to  be  taken  most 
strongly  against  the  party  who  selected  the  words  in  ques- 
tion (Broom's  Legal  Maxims,  529,  and  cases  cited).  The 
rule  finds  strong  illustration  in  such  cases  as  policies  of 
insurance,  where  one  party  to  the  contract,  viz.,  the  insurers, 
almost  invariably  selects  the  general  words  used  in  the 
instrument.  (See  Harmon  v.  Mut.  Ins.  Co.^  81  N.Y.,  184, 
where  this  rule  is  rigidly  adhered  to.) 

It  is  also  a  rule  that  an  obscure  contract  is  to  be  inter- 
preted most  strongly  against  the  party  to  whom  the  obscur- 
ity is  attributable  (  Wetjuore  v.  Pattkon,  45  Mich.,  439-441). 

In  the  present  case  the  rule  of  the  so-called  Founders  has 
remained  for  about  eighty  years  unaltered.  The  word  "  heter- 
odoxy "  has  during  all  this  period  remained  undefined  and 
unexplained.  Several  generations  of  professors  have  passed 
away  without  their  beliefs  being  judicially  called  in  ques- 
tion. The  word  "heterodoxy"  seems  to  he  too  vague  to 
heeome  the  subject  of  judicial  inquijy.  Observe  that  no  power 
of  removal  is  granted  to  the  Visitors  because  the  party 
believes  or  teaches  in  opposition  to  the  creed.  The  ground 
for  removal  before  this  Board  is  Heterodoxy,  and  there  is 
no  mode  of  ascertaining  what  "  heterodoxy  "  is  unless  resort 
be  had  to  the  ordinary  meaning  of  the  word. 

"  Heterodoxy,"  as  commonly  understood,  is  a  deviation 
from  the  established  opinions  on  the  matter  of  religion. 
(See  Worcester's  Dictionary,  title  Heterodox.)  This  would 
not  fairly  include  the  present  case,  for  there  is  at  most  only 
a  deviation  from  a  special  creed,  established  by  three  or  four 
persons,  having  no  correspondence  with  any  creed  in  general 
use  among  the  members  of  the  particular  denomination  to 
which  the  Founders  belonged.  It  is  an  eclectic  creed,  made 
up,  as  will  be  hereafter  shown,  from  divers  and  even  contra- 
dictory sources.  If  deviation  from  the  creed  had  been 
intended,   the   Founders   should   have   said    so.     Power   to 


18 

remove  for  that  cause  may,  perhaps,  be  conferred  upon  the 
Trustees  under  the  words  "other  good  and  sufficient  cause." 
All  that  we  urge  now  is,  that  it  is  not  conferred  upon  the 
Board  of  Visitors. 

Still  we  cannot  refrain  from  expressing  our  belief  that  the 
"  Founders  "  did  not  intend  to  guard  assent  to  their  creed 
by  a  threat  ever  suspended  over  the  Professors  of  removal 
for  "heterodoxy."  Their  reliance  was  upon  the  general 
character  of  the  Professor  and  upon  his  being  an  "orthodox 
and  consistent  Calvinist,"  and  upon  his  solemn  declaration 
made  when  he  entered  upon  his  duties  and  repeated  every 
five  years.  If  these  could  not  secure  his  adhesion  to  the 
creed,  nothing  of  a  minatory  nature  could. 

The  fair  conclusion,  then,  is  that  the  word  "heterodoxy," 
as  used  in  Article  20,  refers  to  a  departure  from  the  estab- 
lished tenets  of  the  denomination  of  Christians  to  which  the 
Professor  belongs.  In  that  view,  reference  to  the  creed  of 
the  "  Founders  "  is  immaterial. 

The  General  Merits  of  the  Case. 

While  having  perfect  confidence  in  the  foregoing  views,  I 
proceed  to  argue  this  case  on  the  theory  that  "  heterodoxy  " 
includes  the  case  of  departure  from  the  special  creed  of  the 
Founders.  In  that  view  I  shall  maintain  that  no  ground 
exists  for  the  charges  set  forth  in  the  fourth  (IV.)  article  of 
the  Amended  Complaint. 

Before  taking  up  this  article  in  detail,  it  will  be  necessary 
to  show  the  precise  scope  and  bearing  of  the  matters  in  con- 
troversy. 

This  case  presents  purely  a  legal  question.  Has  there 
been  such  a  departure  by  Professor  Smyth  from  the  aims 
and  purposes  of  the  foundation  on  which  he  is  placed  as  to 
violate  the  contract  between  him  and  the  Trustees  of  the 
Seminary,  and  to  prevent  him  from  enjoying  the  benefits  of 
the  foundation  upon  which  he  is  placed.  This  question  in- 
volves to  some  extent  the  law  of  charitable  trusts,  and  the 
power  of  a  Board  of  Visitors  acting  partly  under  the  com- 


19 

mon   law  and  partl}^  under  provisions  of   a  Massachusetts 
statute. 

The  first  branch  of  this  subject  to  be  considered  is  the 
meaning  of  the  expression  "  charitable  trusts." 

The  Law  of  Charitable  Trusts  Stated. 

The  first  branch  of  this  subject  to  be  considered  is  the 
meaning  and  effect  of  the  expression  "  charitable  trusts," 
under  which  it  will  be  claimed  by  the  signers  that  the  pres- 
ent foundation  is  to  be  ranked.  The  word  "  charitable  "  is 
here  a  purely  technical  word,  and  not  to  be  confounded  with 
its  popular  meaning  of  bestowal  of  alms  upon  the  poor. 
The  great  element  in  a  "  charitable  trust "  is  that  it  is  public 
in  its  nature,  and  in  some  form  beneficial  or  useful  to  man- 
kind. Such  trusts  existed  as  far  back,  in  England,  as  there 
is  clear  historical  light,  being  undoubtedly  borrowed  from  a 
highly  developed  system  on  this  subject  in  the  later  Roman 
law,  attributable  to  the  general  spread  of  the  principles  of 
Christianity,  and  to  the  necessity  of  endowments  for  the  sup- 
port of  hospitals,  care  of  the  poor,  houses  of  rest  for  way- 
farers, support  of  churches  and  priests,  redemption  of 
Christian  captives,  etc. 

These  trusts,  introduced  into  England  no  doubt  by  the 
clergy,  have  been  mainly  for  the  promotion  of  practical  good 
deeds  among  men.  But  few,  comparatively,  have  existed  for 
the  mere  spread  of  opinions.  An  attempt,  rude  it  must  be 
admitted,  to  classify  them  is  found,  in  England,  in  a  statute 
of  the  43d  Elizabeth  (a.d.  1601),  Chapter  IV.  It  is  by  ref- 
erence to  the  classifications  of  this  statute  that  English 
courts  have  been  largely  guided  in  determining  whether  a 
gift  is  charitable  or  not.  It  is  a  significant  fact  that  none  of 
the  enumerations  in  that  statute  has  any  connection  with  the 
spread  of  religious  opinions.  The  poor  are  referred  to,  edu- 
cation, public  works,  relief  of  prisoners,  marriage  portions 
of  poor  maids,  support  of  young  tradesmen,  and  the  like. 
It  is  only  by  inference  that  religious  opinions  are  included. 
Before  the  year  1600  such  foundations  can  scarcely  have  ex- 


20 

isted,  or  tliey  would,  if  common,  no  doubt  have  been  referred 
to  in  the  statute  of  Elizabeth. 

There  is  a  peculiarity  about  trusts  for  these  purposes, 
which  sets  them  apart  from  all  of  a  private  nature.  They 
ask  the  protection  of  the  law  for  the  continuance  of  the  foun- 
dation forever.  The  fund  is  to  be  forever  intact,  and  only 
the  income,  as  it  accrues  from  time  to  time,  is  to  be  appropri- 
ated to  the  "  charitable  "  use.  The  long  line  of  beneficiaries 
beginning  to-day,  it  may  be,  stretches  on  to  infinity.  Noth- 
ing of  this  kind  is  tolerated  in  the  case  of  private  trusts. 
They  must  end  at  the  termination  of  a  specified  number  of 
lives  in  being  when  the  trust  is  created,  and  a  moderate  term 
of  years  in  addition  (twenty-one  years).  Every  such  trust 
may  thus  be  challenged  as  to  its  validity.  What  is  its  object  ? 
Is  it  to  found  a  family,  to  promote  the  ends  of  private  per- 
sons, even  to  found  a  library  or  a  picture-gallery  for  their  ex- 
clusive use?  If  so,  it  cannot  be  perpetual.  On  the  other 
hand,  is  it  to  found  a  public  library,  public  schools,  give  em- 
ployment to  the  poor,  to  establish  a  public  hospital?  Then 
it  ma}^  last  forever,  for  public  uses  and  public  necessities 
never  end. 

In  fact,  the  distinction  between  private  trusts  and  chari- 
table trusts  depends  on  large  views  of  public  policy.  It  is 
contrary  to  the  best  interests  of  a  State  to  permit  an  owner 
of  property,  by  any  deed,  will,  or  other  instrument  whatev^er, 
to  keep  the  estate  forever  devoted  to  private  uses.  In  the 
nervous  language  of  the  old  judges,  they  who  attempt  to  do 
this  "fight  against  God,"  who  decrees  in  human  affairs  muta- 
tion and  instability  instead  of  fixedness  and  stability.  To 
this  general  rule  of  invalidity  of  permanent  trusts,  the  spe- 
cial rule  as  to  charitable  uses  is  the  only  exception. 

Now,  what  is  the  underlying  thought  that  lends  to  these 
charitable  trusts  a  practical  immortality,  and  to  this  end  sum- 
mons the  law  to  tlieir  protection  and  support?  To  this  in- 
quiry there  is  but  one  answer.  It  is  the  element  in  them  of 
public  utility.  Let  them  be  beneficial  to  the  public;  they 
may  be  allowed  to  exist.  Let  them  be  pernicious  to  the 
public ;  they  should  be  unsparingly  condemned  and  rooted 


21 

out.  Public  utility  is  thus  the  condition  and  the  law  of  their 
existence. 

Perhaps  no  case  shows  this  more  cleai'ly  than  the  very 
peculiar  foundation  of  Thomas  Brown,  established  by  the 
Court  of  Chancery  in  Eiigiand,  in  the  case  of  the  University 
of  London  v.  Yarroiv^  23  Beavan,  159,  and  on  appeal  in  1 
De  Gex  &  Jones,  73.  The  testator  made  a  bequest  to  a  cor- 
poiation  for  founding,  establishing,  and  upholding  an  institu- 
tion for  studying  and  endeavoring  to  cure  maladies  of  any 
quadrupeds  or  birds  useful  to  man.  The  Lord  Chancellor 
said,  in  this  case  :  "  I  cannot  entertain  for  a  moment  a  doubt 
that  the  establishment  of  a  hospital  in  which  animals  which 
are  useful  to  mankind  should  be  properly  treated  and  cured, 
and  the  nature  of  their  diseases  investigated,  with  a  view  to 
public  advantage,  is  a  charity  "  (1  D.  G.  &  J.,  80). 

This  being  the  crucial  test  of  a  charitable  institution,  it 
would  follow  that  no  establishment  of  this  kind  pernicious 
to  mankind,  or  even  of  doubtful  utility,  could  be  upheld  for 
a  moment  by  the  courts.  The  institution  must  be  able  to 
vindicate  its  right  to  a  perpetual  existence,  by  showing  that 
it  is  presumably  for  the  public  advantage. 

Such  a  principle  as  this  is  peculiarly  applicable  to  a  per- 
petual foundation  for  teaching  and  inculcating  opinions.  It 
surely  cannot  be  for  the  public  advantage  to  have  erroneous 
opinions  propagated  among  the  young.  The  theory  of  one 
of  the  counsel  for  the  complainants  cannot  be  upheld,  to  the 
effect  that  it  is  immaterial  whether  the  opinions  are  plainly 
erroneous  or  not.  No  cliarity  could  reasonabl}^  be  upheld 
which  was  established  for  the  perpetual  instruction  of  youth 
in  the  Ptolemaic  theory  of  astronomy,  or  its  modern  Ethio- 
pian revival  under  the  proposition  "that  the  sun  do  move." 
What  has  been  won  from  the  darkness  of  igfuorance  ought 
to  be  retained,  not  merely  as  the  knowledge  of  scientists, 
but  as  the  common  property  of  the  people. 

I  quote  some  valuable  remarks  upon  this  subject  from  a 
work  by  the  present  Lord  Hobhouse,  formerly  Sir  Arthur 
Hobhouse,  long  an  active  member  of  the  Board  of  English 
Commissioners  of  Charities,  and  a  high  judicial  officer.     No 


99 


person  in  England,  where  charitable  institutions  number 
forty  thousand  at  least  has  more  knowledge  or  experience 
of  their  practical  workings  than  he.  I  refer  now  to  his 
work  called  the  Dead  Hand  (published  in  London,  by 
Chatto  &  Wind  us,  1880).  He  says,  on  p.  123 :  "  There  is  a 
subject  on  which  very  few  can  speak  plainly  without  giving 
offence.  It  is  asked  as  though  the  question  were  unanswer- 
able whether  a  public  tribunal  shall  interfere  with  founda- 
tions for  the  support  of  opinions?  The  opinions  for  which 
foundations  are  established  are  usually  of  a  theological  char- 
acter, and  it  is  thought  that  foundations  for  tlijs  purpose  are 
more  valuable  and  sacred  than  others.  Now,  as  to  their 
being  more  valuable  I  will  not  hesitate  to  say  that  founda- 
tions attaching  endowments  to  the  holding  and  teaching  of 
prescribed  opinions  are.,  if  they  are  to  be  unalterable,  the 
very  worst  kind  of  foundations  that  can  be  conceived; 
for  experience  shows  that  the  opinions  to  which  men  have 
attached  property  change  and  become  extinct  (sooner  or 
later,  according  to  their  depth  and  force),  and  then  you  have 
a  direct  premium  on  profession  without  belief.  But  that 
which  tends  to  corrupt  the  noblest  part  of  man,  the  very  eye 
of  the  soul,  his  perception  of  truth,  is  as  evil  a  thing  as  can 
be  imagined.  Suppose,  for  instance,  that  a  large  estate  had 
been  settled  in  the  sixteenth  century  for  maintaining  the 
geocentric  theory  of  the  universe.  It  was  believed  impli- 
citly ;  it  was  supposed  to  rest  on  the  clearest  testimony  of 
revelation ;  to  doubt  it  was  impious.  Suppose,  then,  that 
this  had  been  done,  and  that  now,  when  every  child  at  a 
national  school  knows  the  contrar}^  solemn  lectures  were 
delivered  to  show  that  in  some  sense  or  other  —  astronomical, 
metaphorical,  or  mystical  —  the  sun  travelled  around  the 
earth.  Is  any  public  authority  to  interfere  with  so  degrad- 
ing a  mockery?  It  is  said  'You  cannot  interfere  with  the 
authority  of  the  founder.'  I  venture  to  say,  you  can  and 
ought.  As  long  as  any  man  believes  any  opinion  whatever, 
let  him  proclaim  it,  without  molestation,  from  the  house-tops. 
But  to  allow  that  property  shall  be  devoted  forever  to 
bribing  people  into  teaching  what  they  do  not  believe  is 
monstrous." 


23 

These  are  wise  words,  searching  the  matter  to  the  core. 

No  doubt  the  English  Court  of  Chancery  has  frequently 
followed  the  intentions  of  the  founders  of  a  charity  with  great 
closeness,  even  when  lamenting  their  unwisdom.  There  are 
thus  all  over  Encrland  charitable  institutions  founded  in  form 
on  the  theory  of  public  utility,  which  are  now  on  long  ex- 
perience producing  most  pernicious  results — encouraging 
pauperism,  opposed  to  sound  theories  of  political  economy, 
promoting  ignorance,  or  fomenting  domestic  discord,  or 
gratifying  personal  rancor  and  bitterness.  An  instance  of 
the  last  is  that  of  Thomas  Nash,  of  Bath,  who  gave  a  pet- 
petual  annuity  to  the  ringers  of  bells  at  the  Abbey  Church, 
Bath,  "  who  were  to  ring  from  time  to  time  forever  a  whole 
peal  of  bells,  with  muffled  clappers  and  various  solemn  and 
doleful  changes,  on  the  anniversary  of  his  wedding-day  for 
twelve  hours  ;  and  on  the  anniversary  of  the  day  of  his 
death  to  ring  a  grand  bob  major,  with  merry,  mirthful  peals, 
for  the  same  space  of  time,  in  joyful  commemoration  of  his 
happy  release  from  domestic  tyranny  and  wretchedness." 
These  are  his  own  words  (Lord  Hobhouse's  Dead  Hand,  102, 
103).  This  bitter-minded  testator  was  thus  allowed  to  in- 
scribe on  the  records  of  the  court  a  perpetual  and  appar- 
ently malicious  libel  on  the  character  of  his  wife,  in  the 
technical  form  of  a  charity,  because  the  gift  was  to  sustain 
in  perpetuity  the  bell-ringers  of  a  church. 

The  Parliament  has  been  compelled  to  interfere  with  the 
galling  chains  of  this  severe  construction  as  far  as  opinions 
are  concerned,  and  in  the  Dissenters'  Chapels  Act,  7  and  8 
Vict.,  c.  45,  to  provide,  by  way  of  partial  relief,  that  unless 
there  is  in  the  deed  of  trust  an  express  requirement  that 
particular  religious  doctrines  be  taught  or  observed,  or  be 
forbidden  to  be  taught,  the  usage  for  twenty-five  years  im- 
mediately preceding  any  suit  shall  be  taken  as  conclusive 
evidence  that  doctrines  in  accordance  with  the  usage  may 
henceforward  be  taught  and  observed. 

It  is  certainly  well  worth  while  considering  by  the  courts 
of  this  country,  so  far  as  the  question  is  still  open  for  con- 
sideration, whether  it  is  judicious  to  adopt  a  literal  lud  iron- 


24 

clad  construction  of  these  creeds,  which  may  foster  litigation, 
and  even  in  the  absence  of  litigation  check  the  educational 
movement  of  the  time  and  prevent  thorough  educational 
training. 

It  is  to  be  carefully  observed  that  the  present  case  is  not 
distinctively  that  of  a  religious  creed.  It  is  not  imposed,  as 
is  usual  in  such  cases,  upon  a  congregation  of  believers.  It 
is  meant  as  a  clog  upon  instruction.,  and  may  turn  out  to  be 
a  prohibition  against  instruction  in  the  truth.  It  says  to  a 
body  of  teachers  "  You  must  not  teach  doctrines  because 
they  are  true,  but  because  we,  the  '  founders,'  impose  them 
upon  you."  It  says  to  pupils,  "•  You  must  not  hear  from 
your  instructors  the  truth  simply  and  solely  because  it  is  the 
truth,  but  only  so  far  as  we,  the  'founders,'  allow  your  in- 
structors to  impart  it."  The  teacher  is  thus  emasculated, 
and  the  growth  of  the  scholar  is  one-sided  and  dwarfed.  In 
the  name,  not  only  of  the  professors  under  trial,  but  of  all 
the  teachers  of  the  land,  including,  I  hope,  the  chairman 
of  this  Board,  I  respectfully  protest  against  such  shackles  of 
iron  upon  education. 

Let  us  consider  precisely  what  this  creed  means  to  teachers. 
Here  is  a  class  of  blameless  and  highly  intelligent  men,  who 
think  that  their  true  vocation  is  education  of  the  young, 
and  that  in  some  of  the  noblest  branches  of  knowledge  — 
theology,  ecclesiastical  history,  homiletics,  and  in  the  art  of 
skilful  and  persuasive  public  speech.  They  are  invited  to 
pursue  their  calling  at  Andover  Theological  Seminary.  They 
are  met  at  the  entrance  with  a  ponderous  creed,  smelling  of 
antiquity  and  the  outcome  of  the  fiery  struggles  of  ancient 
days  —  contests  of  which  we  have  little  or  no  knowledge, 
and  with  which  we  have  as  little  sympathy.  Its  words  are 
technical  and  uncouth.  Its  clauses  are  confused  and  con- 
tradictory. Yet  all  must  alike  adopt  this  creed,  the  real 
meaning  of  which  has  never  been  interpreted.  If  such  a  creed 
is  good  for  instructors  in  theology,  why  will  it  not  answer  in 
medicine  or  law  ?  Why  will  it  not  be  useful  to  instructors 
in  art?  One  of  these  Professors  really  teaches  a  fine  art  — 
rhetoric  and  elocution.     Now,  it  is  said  to  him  in  substance : 


25 

"  You  must  not  comment  upon  the  graceful  style  of  Addison, 
nor  the  gorgeous  diction  of  Jeremy  Taylor,  unless  you  com- 
bine in  your  mind  the  utterances  of  Augustine,  Athanasius, 
and  Calvin,  with  the  metaphysical  observations  of  the  elder 
Jonathan  Edwards,  and  the  correct  exposition  of  the  phrase 
'corporeal  strength'  as  coined  by  Dr.  Samuel  Spring.  You 
must  not  refer  to  the  eloquent  speech  of  Chatham  or  Erskine, 
of  Webster  or  Choate,  until  you  renounce  the  heresy  of  the 
Sabellians  and  all  the  wicked  works  of  the  Arminians  and 
Pelagians.  This  you  and  your  successors  must  do  from  time 
to  time  forever."  Jf  such  a  check  on  instruction  is  good  at 
Andover,  why  wouldn't  it  be  useful  at  Harvard,  Amherst, 
or  Williams?  To  tie  an  institution  to  such  a  creed  seems 
like  anchoring  a  vessel  in  the  swift  current  of  a  flowing 
stream  amid  the  mud  and  rubbish  of  bygone  ages.  So  the 
Phillipses,  Browns,  and  Abbots,  noble  in  their  intentions  and 
sincere  Christians,  but  erring  in  sound  judgment,  bedded 
their  little  institution  on  the  hills  of  Andover,  among  the 
mud  and  rubbish  of  extinct  controversies.  There  is  no  com- 
parison between  the  effects  of  a  stationary  creed  upon  educa- 
tion and  upon  a  church.  The  former  is  open  to  the  charge 
of  misleading  youth  —  one  of  the  gravest  offences  known  to 
the  commonwealth  of  ancient  Athens.  Should  the  present 
or  a  similar  case  reach  the  Supreme  Judicial  Court,  it  may 
be  worth  while  for  the  judges  to  consider  the  legal  effect  of 
imposing  a  non-elastic  creed,  religious  or  otherwise,  upon 
teachers  in  our  great  theological  or  other  professional  or 
literary  institutions. 

It  serves  my  present  purpose  to  point  out  some  of  the  far- 
reaching  questions  of  this  painful  case,  and  to  suggest  that 
if  this  creed  is  to  prevail  it  should  have  a  liberal  interpreta- 
tion, that  technicalities  should  not  bear  sway,  that  contradic- 
tions or  modifications  should  be  reconciled  and  adjusted,  that 
the  substance  of  the  creed  should  be  only  regarded,  and  above 
all,  where  the  creed  is  silent,  that  the  principles  of  justice 
and  the  general  spirit  of  Christianity  be  followed. 

Let  your  Honorable  Board  remember  that  tliis  creed  hav- 
ing never  been  judicially  interpreted  as  to  the  specific  meaning 


26 

of  phrases  used,  the  professors  in  considering  its  meaning  had 
the  riofht  to  sfive  it  all  the  breadth  allowed  by  rules  of  liberal 
interpretation  as  applied  by  good-sense,  honesty  of  purpose, 
and  the  rules  of  courts  having  jurisdiction  over  such  subjects. 

The  general  correctness  of  this  line  of  argument  is  affirmed 
by  an  important  decision  of  the  Supreme  Judicial  Court  in  a 
case  concerning  this  very  creed.  I  refer  to  the  case  of  The 
Trustees  of  Phillips  Academy  v.  James  King^  Executor,  12 
Mass.,  546  (a.d.  1815). 

This  case  is  of  so  much  consequence,  from  the  point  of 
view  now  before  your  Board,  that  I  ask  your  indulgence  if  I 
state  it  at  some  length. 

The  controversy  arose  out  of  the  will  of  JNIar}^  Norris, 
dated  March  21,  1811,  who  bequeathed  to  the  Trustees  of 
Phillips  Academy,  in  Andover,  thirty  thousand  dollars,  for 
the  benefit  of  the  Theological  Institution,  so  that  the  income 
might  be  received  from  time  to  time  and  the  principal  kept 
invested.  She  expressly  directed  that  her  bequest  should 
"  enure  particularly  and  exclusively  (so  far  as  may  be  con- 
sistent with  the  constitution  of  the  said  associates)  to  that 
part  of  said  institution  commonly  called  the  Associate  Foun- 
dationr 

The  facts  were  submitted  to  the  court  upon  an  agreed  case. 
It  is  referred  to  at  this  point  in  the  argument  to  show  the 
rule  of  construction  adopted  in  determining  the  validity  of 
the  bequest.  It  was  claimed  on  behalf  of  the  executors  that 
the  will  of  Mrs.  Norris  was  void,  on  the  ground  that  the 
Trustees  of  Phillips  Academy,  by  the  Act  of  the  Legislature 
of  June  19,  1807,  were  made  capable  only  to  hold  property 
for  the  support  of  a  theological  institution  agreeably  to  the 
will  of  the  donors  if  consistent  with  the  original  design 
of  the  founders  of  the  Academy  (see  Deeds  and  Donations, 
68,  69;  Act  of  1814,  p.  132;  Act  of  1824,  p.  164),  that  this 
design  was  to  propagate  Calvinism  as  containing  the  impor- 
tant principles  and  distinguishing  tenets  of  the  Christian  reli- 
gion as  summarily  expressed  in  the  Westminster  Assembly's 
Shorter  Catechism,  and  that  the  design  of  the  donors  of  the 
associate   foundation  was  to    add  to   Calvinism  the  leading 


27 

principles  of  Hopkinsiunism  —  a  mixture  inconsistent  with 
the  original  design  of  the  founders  of  the  Academy. 

It  is  to  be  observed  that  Mrs.  Norris  made  her  will  with  all 
the  associate  statutes  before  her.  These  were  adopted  March 
21,  1808.  Her  will  was  dated  March  21,  1811,  precisely 
three  years  later. 

Now  mark  what  the  court,  speaking  through  Judge 
Thatcher,  says  as  to  the  objection  of  the  executor's  counsel 
(p.  562  of  the  report). 

"  The  counsel  for  the  defendant  brought  forward  in  the 
argument,  and  urged  upon  the  consideration  of  the  court  with 
great  force,  several  specific  propositions  or  articles  of  two 
opposing  creeds,  or  which  the  counsel  contended  were  directly 
contrary  to  each  other,  insisting  that  the  intent  of  the  found- 
ers (Mrs.  Phillips,  John  Phillips,  Jr.,  and  Samuel  Abbot) 
was  to  maintain  Calvinism,  or  the  theology  of  Calvin;  and  if 
there  were  but  one  single  article  or  proposition  in  tlie  creed 
of  the  associate  founders  contrary  to  Calvinism,  the  Trustees 
of  the  Academy  would  have  no  right  to  take  and  appropriate 
the  legacy  in  question ;  and  should  the  creed  imposed  by  the 
associate  founders  omit  a  single  article  contained  in  the  creed 
of  Calvin,  or  as  Calvinism  was  understood  at  the  time  of  the 
foundation  of  the  Academy,  it  would  be  such  a  departure 
from  the  intent,  design,  and  plan  of  the  original  founders  that 
it  must  intercept  the  extended  legacy  and  prevent  any  right 
from  vesting  in  the  plaintiffs.  It  was  then  stated  to  be  an 
essential  article  in  the  creed  of  Calvin,  and  what  all  Calvin- 
ists  must  necessarily  believe  to  make  them  Christians  accord- 
ing to  the  Calvinistic  theology,  that  'the  original  sin  of 
Adam  is  imputed  to  all  posterity  in  some  way  or  manner ; 
that  they  are  all  and  every  one  actual  sinners  —  whereas  the 
associate  foundation  did  not  admit  this  article  in  the  creed 
taught  in  their  branch  of  the  theological  school,  but  substi- 
tuted the  following  article  in  lieu  thereof,  and  made  it  a  ne- 
cessary part  of  the  religious  creed  to  the  professors,  and  to  be 
by  them  taught  to  the  students  in  the  institutions,  viz.,  Adam, 
the  federal  head  and  representative  of  the  human  race,  was 
placed  in  a  state  of  probation,  and  in  consequence  of  his  dis- 


28 

obedience  all  of  his  descendants  were  constituted  sinners'  — 
which  latter  article,  it  was  ursred,  is  not  only  an  article  of  a 
system  of  religion  called  Hopkinsianism,  but  is  inconsistent 
with  and  contrary  to  the  system  of  Calvinism  in  general,  and 
particularly  to  the  foregoing  article  of  the  creed  of  Calvin, 
or  of  a  Calvinistic  Christian,  as  taught  in  the  Assembly's 
Shorter  Catechism,  as  could  not  be  taught  in  consistency  and 
harmony  with  the  design,  views,  and  intentions  of  the  ori- 
ginal founders  of  the  Academy,  and  thus  the  legacy  being 
given  to  promote  Hopkinsianism,  in  opposition  to  Calvinism, 
as  explained  in  the  said  catechism,  is  void." 

Before  going  further  in  this  case,  it  must  be  stated,  by  way 
of  explanation,  that  three  distinct  classes  of  donors  have  been 
referred  to  by  the  court  in  this  decision :  (a)  the  early  or 
true  founders,  of  April  21,  1778;  (b)  the  donors  of  August 
31, 1807,  Madame  Phoebe  Phillips,  John  Phillips,  and  Samuel 
Abbot,  who  may  be  called  the  Calvinistic  donors ;  (<?)  the 
donors  of  March  21,  1808,  called  the  Hopkinsian  or  associate 
donors. 

Now,  the  objection  that  was  urged  upon  the  court  was,  that 
there  was  an  inconsistency  between  the  requirements  of  the 
Calvinistic  founders  marked  above  (6)  and  that  of  the  asso- 
ciates marked  (c),  and  that  as  the  legislative  act  of  June  19, 
1807,  required  consistency^  there  was  no  "  consistency,"  and 
the  plan  of  the  associates  could  not  be  carried  out.  If  the 
legacy  of  Mrs.  Norris  necessitated  Hopkinsianism,  so  much 
the  worse  for  it.     It  was  void. 

Now,  observe  the  way  in  which  the  court  answers  this  ap- 
parently formidable  objection.  It  holds  that  the  counsel 
missed  the  true  point  of  the  case,  for  the  act  of  the  Legislature 
(June  19,  1807),  in  referring  to  the  original  design  of  the 
founders,  means  the  founders  above  marked  (a)  —  the  found- 
ers of  1778  —  and  each  of  the  creeds  (of  1807  and  1808)  now 
before  your  Board  must  be  consistent  with  that  design. 
This  was  beyond  doubt  the  meaning,  for  the  creed  of  1807 
was  not  adopted  until  August  31st,  while  the  act  of  the 
Legislature  was  enacted  June  19th,  forty  days  befoi'e. 

The  Constitution  of  1778  prescribed  no  creed.     It  declared 


29 

in  two  places,  and  with  much  emphasis,  that  "  the  first  and 
principal  object  of  the  institution  (italics  by  the  founders)  is 
the  promotion  of  true  piety  and  virtue." 

Now,  the  question  is.  Does  the  associate  creed  of  March, 
1808,  square  with  that  "  original  design  "  ?  In  deciding  that 
point  the  court  applies  a  rule  of  construction  which  we  in- 
voke in  our  behalf,  using  the  following  language  : 

"  There  is  a  clear  and  intelligible  meaning  consistent  with 
the  whole  course  of  the  providential  government  of  God  over 
the  natural  and  moral  world  by  general  laws,  so  far  as  the 
subject  has  been  investigated,  which  may  he  applied  to  the 
two  articles  attempted  to  be  contrasted  with  no  greater  latitude 
in  the  use  of  language  than  is  frequently  applied  by  orthodox 
divines  to  words  and  phrases  in  the  Bible  not  always  to  be 
taken  literally,  in  which  sense  these  propositions  or  articles 
will  mean  the  same  thing.  And  in  such  sense  they  are  con- 
sistent with  the  revelations  contained  in  the  Bible,  which  rev- 
elations make  up  the  fundamental  principles  of  the  religion 
of  Jesus.  Hence  there  is  no  necessity  of  conjecturing  a 
variety  of  meanings  which  the  words  may  possibly  be  suscep- 
tible of  in  minds  more  habituated  to  dwell  on  the  theories  of 
certain  divines  than  on  the  religion  of  Jesus  as  delivered  by 
himself  and  those  who  were  authorized  by  God  the  Father  to 
preach  it.  And  I  hesitate  not  to  say  that  in  all  cases 
LIKE  this  we  ought  to  be  satisfied  whenever  we  can  reconcile 
the  language  of  honest  Christians  by  that  charity  of  con- 
struction which  it  is  allowed  by  all  that  we  should  apply  to 
the  Holy  Scriptures." 

"For  myself,"  Judge  Thatcher  continues,  "I  confess  that 
I  do  not  clearly  perceive  any  other  sense  than  that  in  which 
the  two  articles  mean  substantially  the  same  thing,  notwith- 
standing some  diversity  of  expression  in  which  they  can  be 
said  to  be  true  and  consistent  with  the  Christian  religion ; 
and  knowing  as  we  do  the  founders,  as  well  as  the  after  bene- 
factors who  have  set  up  the  associate  foundation,  to  be  per- 
sons of  great  piety  and  most  sincere  believers  in  the  religion 
of  Jesus,  and  that  the  first  and  principal  object  ivith  all  of  them 
has  been  to  establish,  teach,  and  enforce  the  belief  and  prac- 


30 

tice  of  that  religion  on  the  students  of  the  institution,  and 
through  them  on  the  whole  world  of  mankind  —  why  should 
we  now  be  called  upon  to  apply  an  astute^  narroiv,  and  un- 
charitable construction  upon  a  few  technical  propositions, 
merely  to  divert  the  legacy  of  a  pious  woman  from  an  object 
nearer  to  her  than  life  itself?  And  let  me  add,  in  this  case 
the  object  is  great  and  noble  beyond  almost  anything  in  our 
country." 

These  are,  indeed,  noble  and  statesmanlike  words.  They 
establish  several  propositions  closely  related  to  this  case. 
They  allow  a  latitude  in  the  interpretation  of  this  very  creed, 
looking  more  to  the  fundamental  principles  of  the  Christian 
religion  than  to  the  mere  words  of  the  creed  itself.  Christ 
is  greater  than  the  divines  who  resort  to  certain  theories  in 
the  interpretation  of  his  words.  There  must  be  charity  of 
construction,  and  substantial  agreement  with  the  creed  is 
sufficient.  We  must  reflect  that  the  men  who  framed  the 
creed  were  men  of  great  piety  and  sincere  believers,  and 
their  leading  end  and  aim  was  not  to  exalt  their  creed,  but 
to  promote  the  religion  of  their  Master.  Why,  then,  is  this 
court  called  upon  to  adopt  an  "  astute,  narrow,  and  unchari- 
table construction,"  to  subvert  a  legacy?  It  is  on  this  reason- 
ing that  the  legacy  is  valid,  for  there  must  be  a  substantial 
agreement  with  the  original  design.  Without  this  mode  of 
construction  there  would  be  at  this  moment  no  associate 
foundation  in  existence.  We  ask  in  a  like  spirit,  why  should 
an  "astute,  narrow,  and  uncharitable  construction"  be  now 
adopted  to  impair  the  reputation  and  to  take  away  the  prop- 
erty of  men  who  are  equally  pious  and  sincere  believers,  and 
who  have  a  similar  intent  to  promote  the  religion  of  their 
Master? 

We  have  only  to  add  tliat  this  opinion  of  Judge  Thatcher 
is  the  law  of  Massachusetts  as  applied  by  him  to  this  particular 
creed.  As  law,  and  as  announced  by  the  highest  appellate 
court,  the  views  there  set  forth  are  binding  on  this  Board.  It 
would  be  a  breach  of  judicial  subordination  not  to  follow  them. 
You  are  required  by  this  decision  to  adopt  a  liberal  and  chari- 
table construction  as  opposed  to  one  astute  and  narrow ;  you 


31 

are  to  reGfarcl  substance  rather  than  the  mere  technical  mean- 
ing  of  words ;  and  you  are  to  do  this  because  the  principal 
object  of  the  founders  was  to  teach  the  students  the  belief 
and  practice  of  religion  rather  than  to  teach  a  creed,  and 
because  without  this  liberal  construction  there  would  to-day- 
be  no  associate  foundation  in  Andover  Theological  Seminary. 
We  accordingly  stand  upon  this  rule  of  construction,  in- 
sisting that  we  have  a  right  to  its  benefits  throughout  this 
present  controversy. 

The  Creed  Considered  as  a  Legal  Document. 

Taking  up  now  for  discussion  the  specific  points  involved 
in  this  case,  we  can  but  be  struck  with  the  strictly  legal  as- 
pect of  this  creed.  It  abounds,  yea,  superabounds,  with  legal 
terms  and  conceptions.  Adam  is  declared  to  be  the  federal 
head  and  representative  of  the  human  race.  God,  it  asserts, 
entered  into  a  covenant  of  grace  with  those  whom  of  his  own 
good  pleasure  he  elected  to  everlasting  life.  His  covenant 
with  them  was  to  deliver  them  of  this  state  of  misery  by  a 
Redeemer.  This  Redeemer  made  an  atonement  for  the  sins  of 
all  men,  etc. 

Mr.  Maine,  in  his  masterly  work  on  Ancient  Law,  was  the 
fii-st  to  point  out  how  all  such  creeds  as  these  are  saturated 
with  the  rules  and  principles  of  Roman  law.  None  of  these 
questions  were  discussed  or  even  broached  in  the  Eastern 
Church.  Tliat  was  governed  by  the  Greek  spirit,  delighting 
in  pure  metaphysical  speculations  and  in  theology,  engaging 
in  profound  controversies  as  to  the  divine  persons,  the  divine 
substance,  and  the  divine  natures.  The  men  of  the  Western 
Empire  were  of  a  more  practical  nature,  looking  at  the  prob- 
lems which  beset  man  in  his  daily  life  and  the  rules  which 
are  to  be  applied  to  govern  them.  Their  vocation  was  juris- 
prudence. During  the  middle  ages,  while  nearly  every  other 
source  of  knowledge  was  eclipsed,  they  had  at  hand  a  vast 
store-house  of  refined  and  masterly  legal  speculations  in  the 
books  of  Justinian  and  the  commentaries  upon  them.  It  is 
a  mistake  to  suppose  that  the  Pandects  were  lost  during  this 
dark  period  and  then  found,  as  some  writers  maintain.    They 


32 

were  always  at  hand  to  guide  opinion,  and  moulded  the  ideas 
of  theologians. 

The  Latin  language  furnished  a  copious  and  accurate  vo- 
cabulary to  express  theological  ideas.  To  quote  a  passage 
from  Maine:  "The  nature  of  sin  and  its  transmission  by 
inheritance ;  the  debt  owed  by  man  and  its  vicarious  satisfac- 
tion ;  the  necessity  and  sufficiency  of  the  atonement ;  above 
all,  the  apparent  antagonism  between  free-will  and  the  Divine 
Providence  —  these  were  points  which  the  West  began  to 
debate  as  ardently  as  ever  the  Kast  had  discussed  the  articles 
of  its  more  special  creed.  Why  is  it,  then,  that  on  the  two 
sides  of  the  line  which  divides  the  Greek-speaking  from  the 
Latin-speaking  provinces  tliere  lie  two  classes  of  theological 
problems  so  strikingly  diiferent  from  one  another?  ...  I 
affirm  without  hesitation  that  the  difference  between  the 
two  theological  systems  is  accounted  for  by  the  fact  that  in 
passing  from  the  East  to  the  West  theological  speculation 
had  passed  from  a  climate  of  Greek  metaphysics  to  a  climate 
of  Roman  law.  .  .  .  Almost  everybody  who  has  knowledge 
enough  of  Roman  law  to  appreciate  the  Roman  penal  sys- 
tem, the  Roman  theory  of  the  obligations  established  by 
contract  or  delict,  the  Roman  view  of  debts,  and  of  the  modes 
of  incurring,  extinguishing,  and  transmitting  them,  the  Roman 
notion  of  the  continuance  of  individual  existence  by  universal 
succession,  may  be  trusted  to  say  whence  arose  the  frame  of 
mind  to  which  the  problems  of  Western  theology  proved  so 
congenial ;  whence  came  the  phraseology  in  which  these  prob- 
lems were  stated,  and  whence  the  description  of  reasoning 
employed  in  their  solution  ?  "  (Maine's  Ancient  Law,  Scrib- 
ner's  ed.,  ch.  9,  pp.  329-347).  It  is  in  singular  conformity 
with  these  views  that  we  find  that  John  Calvin  was  a  great 
jurist  and  thoroughly  versed  in  the  subtleties  and  refinements 
of  the  Roman  law,  which  are  plentifully  exhibited  through- 
out his  writings  (4  Ency.  Britannica,  9th  ed.,  714,  title  John 
Calvin).  It  may  be  added  that  the  conception  of  Adam  as 
the  "federal  head"  of  his  race  is  a  plain  Roman-law  notion  ; 
for  that  system  assumes  that  a  family  is  a  corporation  repre- 
sented by  its  head,  and  that  this  corporation  is  immortal,  and 


33 

that  rights  and  liabilities  are  transmitted  by  succession  to 
the  ever-changing  members  of  the  family.  It  grows  more 
and  more  clear  on  careful  study  that  the  principles  of  the 
Roman  law  colored  theology  after  the  Reformation  as  well 
as  before.  An  important  inference  from  these  views  is,  that 
these  Roman-law  conceptions  may  be  true  for  us,  but  may 
not  be  suited  to  all  men  ;  that  they  may,  and  probably  will 
be,  to  a  certain  extent,  shifting  and  transitory.  Some  wisdom 
in  the  framers  of  this  creed  is,  as  we  think,  accordingly  shown 
in  requiring  the  Professors  to  maintain  and  inculcate,  not 
only  the  Christian  faith  as  expressed  in  the  creed,  but  also 
all  the  other  doctrines  and  duties  of  our  holy  religion  so  far 
as  may  appertain  to  their  office,  according  to  the  best 
LIGHT  God  shall  give  them.  Here  is  a  sufficiently  wide 
door  opened  for  a  professor  to  compare  the  creed  with  the 
Scriptures,  and  to  determine  whether  its  formal  and  legal 
words  are  the  final  and  the  absolutely  authoritative  expres- 
sion of  Christian  thought.  In  adding  this  last-named  clause, 
the  founders  would  seem  to  have  "  builded  better  than  they 
knew,"  awarding  to  honest-minded  and  candid  teachers  the 
range  of  study  and  expression  which  their  vocation  necessa- 
rily requires. 

Relation  of  the  Creed  of  the   Associate  Founders 
TO  the  Westminster  Shorter  Catechism. 

I  now  approach  the  topic  of  the  relation  of  the  Associate 
Creed  to  the  formulas  of  the  Westminster  Shorter  Catechism. 
It  is  highly  noticeable  that  there  is  not  one  word  concerning 
the  Westminster  Catechism  in  the  constitution  of  the  original 
founders.  That  all  came  in  with  the  donations  of  the  later 
donors,  and  especially  with  those  of  August  31,  1807.  It 
will  be  found  that  in  some  respects  not  touched  upon  by 
Judge  Thatcher  in  the  case  in  12  Mass.,  546,  there  is  a  serious 
modification  of  one  by  the  other,  and  this  modification,  it  is 
believed,  lies  at  the  very  root  of  some  of  the  matters  now 
in  controversy. 

I  shall  contend,  among  other  things,  that  no  professor  on 
the    Associate    Foundation    is  required  to  subscribe  to   the 


34 

Westminster  Assembly's  Shorter  Catechism,  and  this  largely 
on  the  ground  that  the  Associate  Founders  in  making  up 
their  creed  selected  from  the  Shorter  Catechism  certain  pas- 
sages verbatim,  omitting  others,  and  that  it  is  impossible  to 
reconcile  the  creed  with  the  catechism.  What  they  expressly 
used,  they  of  course  adopted;  what  they  omitted,  they  re- 
jected. 

It  will  be  incumbent  upon  me  to  give  some  account  of  the 
history  of  the  production  of  the  Westminster  Catechism  and 
its  associated  document,  viz.,  the  Westminster  confession  of 
faith.  This  account  will  shed  light  on  the  reasons  why  it 
was  so  mangled  by  the  Associate  Founders. 

The  Westminster  Assembly,  a  grave  and  dignified  body  of 
men,  was  by  no  means  simply  an  assembly  of  divines  or  a 
church  convocation.  So  far  was  it  from  anything  of  that 
kind,  that  it  was  a  political  body,  much  resembling  a  consti- 
tutional commission  in  one  of  the  American  States  to  form 
or  to  revise  a  State  Constitution.  It  was  called  in  a  dark 
and  lowering  time  in  English  history,  when  the  bands  of  the 
old  royal  government  were  being  shaken,  and  the  pressing 
question  in  men's  minds  was  as  to  what  would  succeed  it. 
The  established  religion  had  been  abolished  ;  and  the  inquiry 
was  as  to  its  successor,  also  to  be  established  by  Act  of  Par- 
liament. The  Ordinance  for  calling  the  Assembly  was  passed 
June  12,  1643,  by  both  Houses  of  Parliament.  It  was  an 
Ordinance  and  not  a  law,  for  the  king  would  not  assent  to  it. 
It  is  entitled,  "  An  Ordinance  of  the  Lords  and  Commons  in 
Parliament  for  the  calling  of  an  assembly  of  learned  and 
Godly  divines,  and  others  to  be  consulted  with  by  the  Parlia- 
ment, for  the  settling  of  the  government  and  liturgy  of  the 
Church  of  England,  and  for  vindicating  and  clearing  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  said  Church  from  false  aspersions  and  inter- 
pretations "  (see  Rush  worth's  Historical  Collections,  where 
the  Ordinance  is  published  at  length).  Among  the  delegates 
are  noblemen,  noted  lawyers,  heads  of  colleges,  statesmen  as 
well  as  divines. 

Their  function  was  to  discuss  and  advise  as  to  such  matters 
as  were  proposed  to  them  by  both  Houses  of  Parliament,  and 


35 

no  other,  and  in  particular  to  come  to  a  nearer  agreement  with 
the  Church  of  Scotland.  The  persons  named  in  the  Ordi- 
nance were  required  to  attend.  They  were  also  required  to 
divulge  none  of  their  doings  without  the  consent  of  the  Par- 
liament. Their  presiding  officer  was  named  in  the  Ordinance. 
The  expenses  of  the  divines  were  borne  by  "  the  common- 
wealth "  at  the  rate  of  four  shilling's  per  day,  and  they  were 
relieved  from  all  loss  and  forfeiture  by  reason  of  non-residence 
and  absence  from  their  churches  or  cures.  What  was  this 
but  to  create  a  great  governmental  machine  with  the  view  of 
establishing  a  National  Church  ?  It  was  that  and  nothing 
else. 

Every  one  versed  in  the  history  of  the  time  knows  that 
this  was  a  sagacious  scheme  to  establish  a  Parliamentary 
Church  of  the  Presbyterian  type.  This  was  the  reason  of 
the  existence  of  the  Assembly  and  the  law  of  its  being.  The 
first  attempt  was  to  revise  the  Thirty-nine  Articles  of  the 
Church  of  England.  After  proceeding  some  waj''  with  these, 
this  plan  was  abandoned. 

There  were  two  parties  in  the  Assembly  —  the  Presby- 
terians and  the  Independents,  or  "  Congregationalists,"  the 
former  far  outnumbering  the  latter.  There  were  in  all  one 
hundred  and  forty-nine  persons  named  in  the  Parliamentary 
Ordinance.  All  decisions  agreed  to  by  the  majority  were  to 
be  reported  to  Parliament  as  being  agreed  to  by  the  Assembly. 
The  Parliament  had  determined,  as  far  back  as  1641  (De- 
cember 2d),  that  there  should  be  throughout  the  whole  realm 
religious  conformity,  stating  that  they  would  not  let  loose 
the  golden  reins  of  discipline  and  government  to  leave  private 
persons  to  take  up  what  form  of  divine  service  they  please 
(Petition  and  Remonstrance,  4  Rushworth,  438-451 ;  Propo- 
sition 185,  on  p.  450). 

Professor  Masson  (Life  of  Milton,  vol.  ii.,  p.  514)  rightly 
says  that  "this  Assembly,  sitting  for  more  than  five  years  and 
a  half,  holding  one  thousand  one  hundred  and  sixty-three 
sessions,  side  by  side  with  the  Long  Parliament,  and  in  con- 
stant conference  and  co-operation  with  it,  has  left  remarkable 
and  permanent  effects  in   the   British   Islands.     Its  history 


36 

ought  to  be  more  interesting  in  some  respects  to  Britons  now 
than  the  history  of  the  Council  of  Basel,  the  Council  of 
Trent,  or  any  other  of  the  great  ecclesiastical  councils,  more 
ancient  and  ecumenical,  about  which  we  hear  so  much."  It 
may  properly  be  added,  more  interesting  to  ourselves;  for  we 
are  to-day  feeling  its  influence  in  the  charge  against  five  Pro- 
fessors in  Andover  Theological  Seminary  for  "•  heterodoxy  "  in 
not  adopting  its  shibboleth  and  swearing  by  its  precise  forms. 
The  enormous  preponderance  of  the  Presbyterian  element 
in  the  Assembly  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  of  the  one  hundred 
and  five  divines  who  were  members,  one  hundred  were  of 
that  sect  and  only  five  were  Independents.  They  were  col- 
lected to  revise  the  national  creed,  and  to  establish  new  forms 
of  worship  in  place  of  the  disowned  liturgy.  English  poli- 
ticians still  thought  that  there  must  be  a  national  church,  and 
that  no  person  in  the  country  should  be  permitted  to  be  out 
of  it.  It  was  the  prevailing  notion  that  it  was  possible  to 
frame  propositions  respecting  all  great  religious  problems  — 
concerning  God,  the  creation  of  man,  free-will,  sin,  and  man's 
destiny  —  that  should  be  so  true  and  fixed  that  the  nation 
should  be  bound  to  them,  and  that  no  person  subject  to 
English  law  should  be  permitted  to  swerve  from  them  (2 
Masson,  Life,  etc.,  625).  This  was  certainly  the  view  of  the 
Presbyterian  party  in  the  Assembly.  Now  mark  the  precise 
difference  between  this  idea  and  the  contemporary  notion  of 
the  New  England  Independent  divines  as  represented  by 
their  leader,  John  Robinson.  When,  in  1620,  he  prayed 
with  the  emigrants  departing  from  Delfthaven  in  Holland, 
and  gave  them  his  parting  blessing,  he  exhorted  them  to 
openness  of  mind  and  candor  of  thought.  His  memorable 
words  were :  "  I  cannot  sufSciently  bewail  the  condition  of 
the  reformed  churches,  who  are  come  to  a  period  in  religion, 
and  will  go  at  present  no  further  than  the  instruments  of 
their  reformation.  The  Lutherans  cannot  be  drawn  to  go 
beyond  what  Luther  saw ;  and  the  Calvinists,  you  see,  stick 
fast  where  they  were  left  by  that  great  man  of  God,  who  yet 
saw  not  all  things.  This  is  a  misery  much  to  be  lamented ; 
for  though  they  were  burning  and  shining  lights   in    their 


37 

times,  yet  they  penetrated  not  into  the  whole  counsel  of  God  ; 
but  were  they  now  living,  would  be  as  willing  to  embrace 
further  lights  as  that  which  they  first  received.  I  beseech 
you,  remember  it  as  an  article  of  your  church  covenant  that 
you  be  ready  to  receive  whatever  truth  shall  he  made  known  to 
you  from  the  written  word  of  Crod.^'  He  adds,  by  way  of 
caution,  that  they  should  take  heed  as  to  what  they  receive 
as  truth,  examining  it,  considering  it,  and  comparing  it  with 
other  Scriptures  of  truth  before  they  receive  it  (Neal,  Hist. 
Puritans,  vol.  ii.,  pp.  120,  121).i 

1  Since  the  preparation  of  this  argument,  I  have  met  with  additional  evidence 
that  there  was  a  strong  party  of  the  ablest  religious  Protestant  and  orthodox 
thinkers  opposed  to  non-elastic  religious  creeds,  about  the  time  of  the  formation 
of  the  Westminster  Catechism.  I  refer  for  a  single  instance  to  a  passage  in 
the  famous  work  of  Mr.  William  Chillingworth  entitled  "  The  Religion  of  Prot- 
estants a  Safe  Way  to  Salvation."  Speaking  of  creeds  he  says,  "This  pre- 
sumptuous imposing  of  the  senses  of  men  upon  the  words  of  God,  the  special 
senses  of  men  upon  the  general  words  of  God,  and  laying  them  upon  men's 
consciences  together  under  the  equal  penalty  of  death  and  damnation  ;  this 
vain  conceit  that  we  can  speak  of  the  things  of  God  better  than  in  the  words 
of  God  ;  thus  deifying  our  own  interpretations  and  tyrannous  enforcing  them 
upon  others  ;  this  restraining  of  the  Word  of  God  from  that  latitude  and  gen- 
erality and  the  understanding  of  men  from  that  liberty  wherein  Clirist  and 
the  apostles  left  them,  is  and  hath  been  the  only  fountain  of  all  the  schisms  of 
the  Church,  and  that  which  makes  them  immortal;  the  common  incendiary 
of  Christendom,  and  that  which  tears  into  pieces  not  the  coat,  but  the  bowels 
and  members  of  Christ,  vidente  Turco  nee  dolente  JudcBO.  Take  away  these 
walls  of  separation,  and  all  will  quickly  be  one.  Take  away  this  persecuting, 
burning,  cursing,  damning  of  men  for  not  subscribing  to  the  words  of  men  as 
the  words  of  God;  require  of  Christians  only  to  believe  Christ,  and  to  call  no 
man  master  but  him  only;  let  those  leave  claiming  infallibility  that  have  no 
title  to  it,  and  let  them  that  in  their  words  disclaim  it,  disclaim  it  likewise  in 
their  actions.  In  a  word  take  away  tyranny,  which  is  the  devil's  instrument 
to  support  errors  and  superstitions  and  impieties,  in  the  several  parts  of  the 
world  which  could  not  otherwise  long  withstand  the  power  of  truth  :  I  say 
take  away  tyranny,  and  restore  Christians  to  their  just  and  full  liberty  of  cap- 
tivating their  understandings  to  Scripture  only,  and  as  rivers  when  they  have 
a  free  passage  run  all  to  the  ocean,  so  it  may  well  be  hoped  by  God's  blessing, 
that  universal  liberty,  thus  moderated,  may  quickly  reduce  Christendom  to 
truth  and  unity.  These  thoughts  of  peace  (I  am  persuaded)  may  come  from 
the  God  of  peace  and  to  his  blessing  I  commend  them."  Answer  to  Fourth 
ChaiJter  of  "  Charity  Maintained  by  Catholics,"  Section  16.  These  are  noble 
words  for  the  year  1637,  and  one  can  well  understand  from  them  why  John 
Locke  treated  Chillingworth  as  his  master.  Chillingworth  as  he  states  in  this 
connection  was  referring  to  some  existing  Protestant  creeds.  It  is  interesting 
to  trace  the  close  resemblance  between  these  thoughts  and  the  views  of  Judge 
Thatcher  in  the  case  of  Trustees  of  Phillips  Academy  against  King,  12  Massar- 
chusetts  Reports,  559,  563. 


38 

Here  we  have  two  opposing  and  warring  elements  in  the 
Westminster  Assembly  —  the  one  jjarty  insisting  that  truth 
could  be  positively  stated  in  a  fixed  form  of  words,  to  be 
binding  on  every  person,  and  that  they  could  and  would  fix 
the  form ;  the  other  party  urged  that  no  man  or  set  of  men 
could  see  all  things,  and  that  no  fixed  and  immutable  creed 
could  properly  be  made.  What  was  the  claim  of  the  Calvin- 
ists  but  a  claim  to  infallibility  ?  Well  savs  the  historian  Gar- 
diner  of  that  period,  "  the  men  of  culture  and  education  in 
England  stood  between  two  infallibilities  —  the  infallibility  of 
Calvinism  and  the  infallibility  of  Rome  "  (Gardiner's  Eng- 
land under  the  Duke  of  Buckingham,  etc.,  vol.  i.,  p.  213, 
Longmans,  London,  1875).  We  must  now  count  it  as  a  mis- 
fortune, I  think,  that  the  great  and  growing  element  of  New 
England  Independency  was  not  represented  in  this  Assembly. 
It  would  have  been  perfectly  proper  for  the  colonies  to  have 
been  represented  there,  for  they  were  still  in  law  and  fact  a 
part  of  England,  and  liable  at  any  time  to  be  governed  by  im- 
perial authority. 

A  pressing  invitation  was  sent  from  England  by  noblemen 
and  other  leading  men  to  Mr.  Cotton,  of  Boston,  Hooker,  of 
Hartford,  and  Mr.  Davenport,  of  New  Haven,  to  come  over 
to  England  to  assist  "  in  settling  and  composing  the  affairs  of 
the  Church."  They  probably  regarded  the  Assembly  as  a 
political  expedient.  Hooker  said  that  he  "  liked  not  the  busi- 
ness, and  did  not  think  it  any  sufficient  call  for  them  to  go 
three  thousand  miles."  At  all  events  they  did  not  go.  One 
must  now  think  that  if  these  able  men  had  attended,  and 
pressed  the  views  of  Robinson,  there  would  have  been  a  true 
religious  progress.     But  it  was  not  so  to  be. 

Five  men  of  tolerant  opinions  must  bear  the  brunt  of  the 
struggle  alone.  They  were  Congregational  ministers  recently 
returned  from  Holland.  Their  names  should  be  mentioned  : 
Thomas  Goodwin,  Philip  Nye,  William  Bridge,  Jeremiah  Bur- 
roughs, and  Sidrach  Simpson  —  men  able,  learned,  and  dis- 
tinguished.    But  what  were  they  among  so  many  ? 

I  would  not  be  understood  as  stating  that  the  five  repre- 
sentatives of  Independency  above  named  stood  for  absolute 


39 

liberty  of  religious  opinion.  The  divines  of  that  time  were 
not  so  far  advanced. 

They,  however,  had  some  latitude  of  view  as  to  require- 
ments of  uniformity.  They  had  avowed  it  as  one  of  their 
principles,  that  they  would  not  commit  themselves  that  the 
views  they  then  held  would  remain  always  unchanged  (3 
Masson,  Life,  89).  They  allowed  liberty  of  religious  difference 
to  a  certain  extent,  while  the  leading  spirits  of  the  army, 
going  further,  supported  that  liberty  without  qualification. 

The  great  majority  of  the  Assembly  favored  an  absolute 
and  complete  conformit}'"  of  the  English  people  to  the  church 
about  to  be  establishefl  by  them.  The  Shorter  Catechism 
was  but  a  minor  branch  of  a  great  and  comprehensive  scheme, 
including  doctrine,  discipline,  and  worship.  They  reckoned, 
however,  without  Oliver  Cromwell,  and  in  the  end  had  to 
take  his  views  into  account.  The  House  of  Commons,  at  his 
instigation,  on  September  13,  1644,  passed  an  order  to  the 
effect  that  the  Assembly  should  endeavor  to  reconcile  their 
differences  of  opinion  ;  and  if  that  cannot  be  done,  should 
endeavor  to  find  out  some  way  how  far  tender  consciences, 
who  cannot  in  all  things  submit  to  the  common  rule  which 
shall  be  established,  may  be  borne  with  according  to  the 
Word. 

The  Assembly  reported  progress  from  time  to  time  to  the 
Parliament.  Their  scheme  was  taken  up  and  discussed  prop- 
osition by  proposition.  On  the  28th  of  January,  1644-45, 
the  Scotch  system  of  Presbyterianism  was  established  by 
law,  with  Presbyteries  (or  classes),  Synods,  and  a  National 
Assembly. 

John  Milton  could  not  endure  the  political  windings  and 
turnings  of  the  Westminster  Assembly.  In  a  famous  sonnet 
he  describes  their  plots  and  packings  as  worse  than  those  of 
the  Council  of  Trent. 

From  time  to  time  the  Assembly  continued  to  report,  and 
the  Parliament  continued,  even  during  all  the  excitement 
and  confusion  of  the  civil  war,  to  discuss  and  adopt.  On  the 
1st  day  of  May,  1648,  they  passed  the  terrible  Ordinance  for 
the  Suppression  of  Blasphemies  and  Heresies,  so  that  it  be- 


40 

came  the  law  of  England.  It  provided  "  that  whoever  should 
teach,  print  or  write,  maintain,  and  publish  that  there  is  no 
God,  or  that  God  is  not  present  in  all  places,  doth  not  know 
and  foreknow  all  things,  or  that  he  is  not  Almighty,  that  he 
is  not  perfectly  holy,  or  that  he  is  not  eternal ;  or  that  the 
Father  is  not  God,  the  Son  is  not  God,  or  that  the  Holy 
Ghost  is  not  God,  or  that  the  three  are  not  one  Eternal  God ; 
or  shall  in  like  manner  maintain  that  Christ  is  not  God  equal 
with  the  Father,  or  shall  deny  the  manhood  of  Christ,  or  that 
the  Godhead  and  manhood  of  Christ  are  several  natures,  or 
that  the  humanity  of  Christ  is  pure  and  unspotted  of  all  sin  ; 
or  that  shall  maintain  and  publish,  as  aforesaid,  that  Christ 
did  not  die,  nor  rise  from  the  dead,  nor  is  ascended  into 
Heaven  bodily;  or  shall  deny  that  his  death  is  meritorious  in 
behalf  of  believers ;  or  shall  maintain  and  publish,  as  afore- 
said, that  Jesus  Christ  is  not  the  Son  of  God,  or  that  the 
Holy  Scripture,  videlicet  (here  follows  the  list  of  the  canoni- 
cal books),  is  not  the  Word  of  God,  or  that  the  bodies  of 
men  shall  not  rise  again  after  they  are  dead,  or  that  there  is 
no  day  of  judgment  after  death :  all  such  maintaining  and 
publishing  of  such  error  or  errors,  with  obstinacy  therein, 
shall  by  virtue  hereof  be  adjudged  felony.  It  is  further  pro- 
vided that  if  such  person  be  convicted  and  does  not  abjure 
his  errors,  he  shall  suffer  the  pains  of  deaths  as  in  case  of 
felony,  without  beneht  of  clergy." 

For  certain  minor  errors,  one  of  which  is  that  a  church 
government  by  Presbytery  is  unchristian  or  unlawful,  the 
offender  is  to  be  committed  to  prison. 

I  do  not  overlook  the  fact  that  there  is  in  the  Westminster 
Confession  of  Faith  (chap.  20,  paragraph  2)  a  noble  state- 
ment that  "  God  alone  is  lord  of  the  conscience,  and  hath  left 
it  free  from  the  doctrine  and  commandments  of  men  which 
are  in  anything  contrary  to  his  word  or  beside  it  in  matters 
of  faith  and  worship."  Placed  where  it  is,  it  is  an  abstract 
proposition ;  and  if  it  means  the  liberty  of  the  individual 
conscience,  it  is  not  consistent  with  the  Acts  of  Parliament 
adopting  this  creed,  nor  with  the  general  purpose  of  the 
Assembly. 


41 

Such  was  the  final  outcome  of  the  attempt  by  Parliament 
to  prescribe  a  fixed  formula  for  Christian  faith.  It  was 
scarcely  ten  years  later  when  all  its  works  and  doings  passed 
out  of  legal  existence.  Its  bloody  statute  of  Conformity  is 
absolutely  blotted  out  from  the  statute-book  with  its  other 
laws.  It  fondly  supposed  that  it  had  settled  religious  belief 
forever.  Its  bigotry  and  intolerance  produced  no  effect  ex- 
cept to  hasten  its  own  destruction.  The  work  of  its  commis- 
sioners, called  the  Shorter  Catechism,  remains,  having  no 
more  value  with  modern  men  than  its  merits  justly  win  for  it. 

It  would  thus  seem  that  the  words  in  which  the  Westmin- 
ster Assembly  framed  its  creed  were  not  so  framed  as  the 
weapons  of  Christ.  They  were  forged  as  thunderbolts  of 
war.  They  stood  for  a  new  State  Church  in  opposition  to 
the  old,  and  the  question  really  was,  to  which  would  the  war 
incline.  When  King  Charles  II.  was  restored,  the  Thirty- 
nine  Articles  again  prevailed.  Had  the  Parliamentary  party 
finally  succeeded,  the  Shorter  Catechism  might  today  have 
been  the  creed  of  the  National  Church  of  England. 

Personally,  I  have  no  controversy,  at  this  time,  with  the 
Shorter  Catechism.  What  I  now  say  is,  that  it  did  not  ac- 
cord in  its  spirit  with  the  Congregationalism  of  John  Robin- 
son and  others  whom  he  represented.  Congregationalists  had 
no  hand  in  framing  it.  It  does  not  agree  with  the  Congrega- 
tionalism of  to-day.  Witness  the  creed  of  the  American  Con- 
gregationalists of  1883  —  broad  and  comprehensive,  sliding 
smoothly  and  skilfully  over  controverted  points,  omitting  the 
hard  phrases  written  into  the  Andover  Creeds,  and  commend- 
ing itself  to  the  consciences  and  judgment  of  reasonable  men. 
I  was  glad  to  see  the  name  of  one  of  this  prosecuting  com- 
mittee signed  to  this  creed,  and  will  still  hope  that  he  will 
yet  mete  out  to  these  accused  Professors  the  same  latitude 
and  tolerance  of  opinion  which  he  has  liberally  accorded  to 
himself  (3  Schaffs  Creeds  of  Christendom,  p.  913). 

Still,  I  do  not  mean  to  deny  that  the  people  of  New  Eng- 
land did  for  a  time,  at  least  to  a  considerable  extent,  commit 
themselves  to  the  Shorter  Catechism.  This  seems  to  have 
been  due  to   the  sagacity  of  the   Assembly  in  preparing  a 


42 

catechism  as  well  as  a  creed.  This  catechism  was  almost 
necessary  to  their  design  in  forming  a  National  Church  em- 
bracing all  the  people.  The  children  could  thus  more  easily 
be  kept  within  the  pale  of  the  church ;  so  could  their  elders, 
not  versed  in  theological  opinions,  have  at  hand  the  simpler 
forms  of  religious  expression.  The  Shorter  Catechism,  for 
this  and  perhaps  other  reasons,  became,  at  least  for  a  time, 
acceptable  here.  Perhaps,  one  of  these  reasons  was  that  the 
Independent  party  occupied  to  some  extent  a  negative  posi- 
tion, and  put  forth  no  catechism. 

Still,  there  was  in  the  Congregational  body  a  far  more  tol- 
erant opinion  than  that  which  governed  the  authors  of  the 
catechism.  One  has  but  to  read  the  preface  to  the  "Savoy  " 
declaration  of  the  Congregationalists  of  1658  to  be  convinced 
of  this.  This  paper  insists  that  there  shall  be  no  force  or 
constraint  in  confessions.  With  such  constraint,  they  degen- 
erate from  the  name  and  nature  of  confessions,  and  are  turned 
into  exactions  and  impositions  of  faith.  There  must  be  in- 
ward freeness,  willingness,  and  readiness  of  the  confessors  to 
contribute  to  the  beauty  and  loveliness  of  the  confession. 
They  herald  it  as  a  great  principle  that  among  all  Christian 
saints  or  churches  there  should  be  vouchsafed  a  forbearance 
and  mutual  indulgence  unto  saints  of  all  persuasions,  holding 
fast  the  necessary  foundations  of  faith  and  holiness.  There 
is  quoted  and  adopted  the  famous  requirement  of  Cromwell, 
already  alluded  to,  that  some  way  is  to  be  found  out  whereby 
tender  consciences,  who  cannot  in  all  things  submit  to  the 
rule  which  may  be  established,  may  be  borne  with  according 
to  the  Word.  There  is  a  fine  spirit  of  charity  and  toleration 
running  through  this  entire  document  (3  Schaff's  Creeds, 
708-718,  A.D.  1658). 

The  same  view  appears  to  be  upheld  by  the  ponderous  lec- 
tures of  Rev.  Dr.  Willard,  at  one  time  pastor  of  the  South 
Church,  Boston,  and  Vice-President  of  Harvard  College. 
The  preface  to  the  lectures,  as  published  by  Joseph  Sewell 
and  Thomas  Prince,  refers  to  Dr.  Willard's  explanation  of 
the  catechism  for  the  use  of  children,  and  then  to  the  more 
elaborate  lectures  for  the  use  of  the  people.     The  first  of  the 


43 

lectures  were  delivered  in  1687,  about  fort}^  years  after  the 
catechism  had  been  adopted  by  Parliament. 

It  would  appear  that  there  was  never  any  slavish  adherence 
to  the  letter  of  the  catechism  in  Massachusetts.  Dr.  Willard. 
delivered  a  course  of  two  hundred  and  fifty  lectures  on  the 
Shorter  Catechism.  We  may  shudder  to  think  what  a  course 
by  him  would  have  been  on  the  whole  body  of  Westminster 
divinity.  Messrs.  Sewell  and  Prince  say  that  it  was  esteemed 
in  their  time  (a.d.  1725)  one  of  the  noblest  and  choicest 
bodies  of  theoretical  and  practical  divinity  anywhere  to  be 
met  with.  It  seems,  however,  that  a  question  had  been 
raised,  even  in  their  day,  of  the  value  of  works  on  system- 
atical divinity,  to  which  the}'  repl}^  "  if  by  systematical 
divinity  be  meant  a  mere  slavish  confinement  to  any 
schemes  thereof  whatever,  conceived  or  published  by  the 
mere  wit  of  man,  though  founded  in  their  own  apprehensions 
on  divine  revelation,  without  a  liberty  reserved  of  varying 
from  them  upon  further  discoveries^  our  author  was  too  gener- 
ous and  great  a  soul,  and  had  too  deep  an  insight  into  the 
present  imperfection  and  fallibility  of  human  nature,  than  to 
be  capable  of  such  a  slavery.  He  was  indeed  a  recommender 
of  divinity  systems,  even  to  all  sorts  of  pcirsons,  and  espe- 
cially young  students,  in  order  to  methodize  their  inquiries 
and  conceptions,  to  keep  their  minds  from  wandering  and  in- 
consistency, etc.,  but  without  obliging  them  to  an  implicit, 
servile  subjection  to  an}^  mere  human  compositions ;  and 
whatever  system  he  fell  into,  it  arose  from  a  careful  scrutiny 
into  the  genuine  meaning  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  .  .  .  and 
not  from  any  mere  previous  veneration  of  the  systems  them- 
selves, or  their  renowned  compilers  or  abettors,  though  worthy 
of  ever  so  much  esteem."  .  .  . 

There  speaks  forth  the  spirit  of  John  Robinson  of  a  hun- 
dred years  before.  No  human  composition  whatever,  call  it 
creed  or  what  you  please,  is  to  be  considered  as  conclusive 
evidence  of  the  doctrines  of  the  Christian  religion.  Such 
documents  are  aids  to  the  correct  understanding  of  Scrip- 
tures, and  nothing  more.  They  never  can  properly  become 
substitutes  for  it.     In  the  same  spirit  it  was  proclaimed  by  a 


44 

Council  of  Congregationalists,  at  Saybrook,  Conn.,  in  1708, 
that  "  the  Bible  is  the  only  sufficient  and  general  rule  of 
religion." 

What,  then,  did  Mrs.  Phoebe  Phillips,  Mr.  John  Phillips, 
and  Mr.  Samuel  Abbot  mean  when,  in  the  instrument  of 
September  2,  1807,  they  required  (Article  12)  that  every 
professor  in  the  Seminary  on  their  foundation  should  make 
and  subscribe  a  declaration  of  his  faith  in  divine  revelation, 
and  in  the  fundamental  and  distinguishing  doctrines  of  Christ 
as  summarily  expressed  in  the  Westminster  Assembly's 
Shorter  Catechism^  while  requiring  him,  in  the  next  breath, 
to  make  a  solemn  promise  that  he  will  open  and  explain  the 
Scriptures  to  his  pupils  with  integrity  and  faithfulness,  and 
that  he  will  maintain  and  inculcate  the  Christian  faith  as 
above  expressed,  etc.,  according  to  the  best  light  God  shall 
give  him  ?  Surely  nothing  less  than  John  Robinson  meant ; 
nothing  less  than  the  framers  of  the  Savoy  declaration  meant; 
nothing  less  than  Samuel  Willard  meant ;  nothing  less  than 
Joseph  Sewell  and  Thomas  Prince  meant,  when  they  used 
the  language  to  which  I  have  already  had  the  privilege  to 
refer.  These  men  and  this  woman  lived  but  a  few  years 
later  than  Messrs.  Prince  and  Sewell,  in  the  same  vicinity, 
and  breathed  the  same  Massachusetts  air  of  Congregational 
liberty.  Finally,  I  ask  what  did  the  Associate  Founders 
mean  when  they  required,  at  the  close  of  their  dreary  creed, 
by  like  form  of  words,  that  the  professors  should  open  and 
explain  the  Scriptures  with  integrity  and  faithfulness,  and 
should  maintain  and  inculcate  the  Christian  faith,  according- 

TO    THE    BEST    LIGHT     GOD    SHOULD    GIVE    THEM?       Surely 

nothing  less  than  Madam  Phillips  and  her  associates  meant, 
when  they  placed  themselves  on  line  with  those  noble  men 
—  Robinson,  Willard,  Sewell,  and  Prince.  That  is  indeed  a 
far-reaching  phrase  —  "  according  to  the  best  light  God  shall 
give  them."  These  words  relax  the  bonds  of  tyrannous 
opinion  and  set  the  captives  free  from  the  bondage  of  men, 
bringing:  them  into  the  s^lorious  freedom  of  the  sons  of  God. 
This  phrase  is  taken  verbatim  from  a  fine  and  glowing  para- 
graph of  John  Milton.      It  is  worthy  of  perpetual  remem- 


45 

brance.  "  The  whole  freedom  of  man  consists  either  in 
spiritual  or  civil  liberty.  As  for  spiritual,  who  can  be  at 
rest,  who  can  enjoy  anything  in  this  world,  who  hath  not 
liberty  to  serve  God  and  to  save  his  own  soul,  according  to 
the  best  light  ivhich  God  hath  planted  in  him  for  that  purpose, 
by  reading  of  his  revealed  will,  and  the  guidance  of  his  Holy 
Spirit?" 

Is  it  not  strange  that  this  little  plank  of  Milton's  religious 
platform  has  floated  down  the  stream  of  time  and  at  last 
lodged  on  the  hills  of  Andover,  and  has  been  taken  up  by 
subtile  theolosfians  and  bedded  in  their  creeds  ?  It  is  as  near 
live  oak  as  anything  to  be  found  there. 

I  must  pause  here  to  sketch  the  Abbot  foundation,  the 
Associate  foundation,  and  the  creeds  which  the  respective 
founders  require. 

There  is  some  difficulty  in  making  this  whole  subject  clear, 
owing  to  the  fact  that  the  Andover  Seminary  has  not  been 
developed  upon  any  preconceived  and  systematic  plan.  It  is 
rather  a  growth  from  the  ideas  and  benefactions  of  different 
sets  of  men,  all  of  whom  were  believers  in  Christianity,  but 
among  whom  prevailed  quite  diverse  theological  opinions. 
Then,  again,  at  its  very  origin  there  was  an  academy  — 
Phillips  Academy  —  since  become  famous  for  the  accuracy  of 
its  classical  and  other  instruction,  upon  which  the  Theological 
Seminary  was  grafted.  One  would  perhaps  think  that  here 
is  an  incongruity.  This  was  not  the  view  of  the  founders. 
The  Hon.  John  Phillips,  of  Exeter,  N.H.,  must  be  considered 
as  the  true  Founder  of  the  institution,  since  on  May  29, 1777, 
he  entered  into  an  obligation  to  pay  a  sum  of  money  to 
trustees  whom  he  named.  He  then  went  on  to  declare  the 
trust.  This  was  mainly  for  the  support  of  the  school,  in 
which  various  subjects  enumerated  by  him  were  to  be  taught. 
Among  others,  as  "  many  of  the  students  may  be  devoted  to 
the  sacred  work  of  the  Gospel  Ministry,"  the  master  was 
to  instruct  them,  not  only  in  the  truth  of  Christianity,  but 
in  certain  great  Scripture  doctrines  which  he  enumerated,  in- 
cluding that  of  the  Trinity,  that  of  the  depravity  of  human 
nature,  the  necessity  of  an  atonement,  repentance,  and  redemp- 


46 

tion  through  Jesus  Christ.  At  the  same  time  he  was  careful 
to  say  emphatically  that  the  first  and  principal  object  of  the 
institution  was  the  promotion  of  true  piety  and  virtue ;  the 
second,  instruction  in  the  English,  Latin,  and  the  Greek 
languages,  together  with  writing,  arithmetic,  music,  and  the 
art  of  speaking;  the  third,  instruction  in  practical  geometry, 
logic,  and  geography  ;  and  the  fourth,  in  such  other  liberal 
arts,  science,  etc.,  as  the  Trustees  shall  direct. 

There  is  no  hint  here  of  a  Theological  Seminary,  but  sim- 
ply a  plan  for  promoting  a  liberal  education.  It  was  substan- 
tially a  "Grammar  School,"  with  instruction  in  the  leading 
topics  of  religion. 

The  same  inference  is  to  be  derived  from  the  donation  of 
the  Hon.  Samuel  Phillips  and  the  same  John  Phillips,  April 
28,  1778  (Deeds  and  Donations,  pp.  16-28).  An  instrument 
(really  a  declaration  of  trust  in  its  nature)  called  a  "  Con- 
stitution of  Phillips  Academy"  was  at  this  time  executed  by 
these  founders,  substantially  identical  with  the  declaration 
of  trust  of  May  29,  1777  ;  this  last-named  paper  was  executed 
by  John  Phillips  alone,  but  without  signature. 

Matters  being  in  this  condition,  an  act  of  incorporation 
was  obtained  from  the  State,  October  4,  1780.  The 
Preamble  to  that  expressly  sets  forth  that  the  rents,  etc.,  of 
the  funds  are  to  be  forever  laid  out  for  the  support  of  a  pub- 
lic Free  School  or  Academy  in  the  town  of  Andover.  The  first 
section  declares'  that  the  Academy  is  established  for  the  pur- 
pose of  promoting  true  piety  and  virtue,  and  for  the  educa- 
tion of  youths,  enumerating  the  subjects  already  named  as 
in  the  Founder's  Constitution.  In  this  incorporating  act  the 
Trustees  are  required  to  conform  to  the  true  design  and 
intention  of  the  founders,  as  expressed  in  the  Constitution 
(Section  3).  The  eighth  section  provides  that  neither  the 
said  Trustees  nor  their  successors  shall  ever  receive  any 
grant  or  donation  the  condition  whereof  shall  require  them, 
or  any  others  concerned,  to  act  in  any  respect  counter  to  the 
design  of  the  first  grantors  or  of  any  prior  donation. 

After  the   Act   of   Incorporation  there  were  other  dona- 
tions, such  as  a  legacy  of   Hon.   John   Phillips,  April   28, 


47 

1795,  for  the  benefit  of  charity  scholars  who  were  hopefully 
pious  and  designed  for  the  Gospel  ministry,  who  might  be 
assisted  in  the  study  of  divinity  under  the  direction  of  some 
eminent  Calvinistic  minister  of  the  Gospel,  until  such  time 
as  an  Orthodox  instructor  shall  be  supported  as  a  Professor 
of  Divinity,  etc. 

The  next  donation  of  importance  is  Lieutenant-Governor 
Samuel  Phillips'  first  donation,  December  12,  1801.  This 
was  a  foundation  for  the  supply  of  certain  religious  books 
(specified)  to  be  delivered  from  time  to  time  to  inhabitants 
of  the  town  of  Andover.  His  second  donation,  January  27, 
1802,  was  for  the  same  general  purpose,  with  a  wider  list  of 
books,  his  object  being  to  counteract  the  dispersion  of  such 
theological  treatises  or  speculations  as  tend  to  undermine  the 
fundamental  principles  of  the  Gospel  plan  of  salvation,  or  to 
reduce  the  Christian  religion  to  a  system  of  mere  morality. 
The  Westminster  Shorter  Catechism  is  named  as  one  of 
nearly  a  score  of  books.  There  are  other  donations  made 
from  time  to  time  to  the  Academy,  which  need  not  be  speci- 
fied. 

There  is  no  official  recognition  of  a  "  Theological  Institu- 
tion "  until  June  19,  1807,  when  an  application  was  made  by 
the  Trustees  of  Phillips'  Academy  for  an  act  additional  to 
the  original  Act  of  Incorporation,  to  enable  them  to  receive 
further  donations  of  charitably  disposed  persons  for  the  sup- 
port of  a  theological  institution,  and  thus  to  complete  the 
design  of  the  pious  founders  and  benefactors. 

The  Legislature  passed  an  act  the  same  day  reciting  the 
substance  of  the  petition,  and  allowing  the  Trustees  to  hold 
real  and  personal  estate  of  a  prescribed  amount  of  income, 
provided  the  income  of  the  said  real  and  personal  estate  be 
alway  applied  to  the  objects  named,  agreeably  to  the  will  of 
the  donors,  if  consistent  with  the  original  design  of  the  found- 
ers of  the  said  Academy. 

Down  to  this  point,  it  is  manifest  that  no  foundation  is 
authorized  by  law,  to  be  thereafter  made,  unless  it  is  consist- 
ent with  the  ORIGINAL  design  of  the  founders,  as  expressed 
in  their  deeds  of  trust.     The  word  "original"  must  be  held 


48 

to  refer  to  the  first  documents  executed  by  them,  or  one  of 
them,  in  1777  and  1778. 

There  is  no  later  statute  of  Massachusetts  changing  the 
rule  of  the  act  of  June  19,  1807. 

The  theory  of  the  Supreme  Judicial  Court,  hereafter  re- 
ferred to,  based  on  the  statute  of  1807,  is  in  perfect  accord- 
ance with  the  law  of  the  English  Court  of  Chancery  in 
administering  charitable  trusts.  Thus  the  Master  of  the 
Rolls  (Romilly)  says,  in  a  comparatively  recent  case  :  "  What 
this  court  looks  at  in  all  charities  is  the  original  intention  of 
the  founder,  and,  apart  from  any  question  of  illegality  and 
various  other  questions,  this  court  carries  into  effect  the 
wishes  and  intentions  of  the  founder  of  the  charity;  and 
where  it  sees  that  those  intentions  have  not  been  carried  into 
effect,  it  rectifies  the  existing  administration  of  the  charity 
for  that  purpose.  If  it  cannot  carry  them  into  effect  specifi- 
cally, it  carries  them  into  effect  as  nearly  as  may  be,  and  with 
as  close  a  resemblance  as  it  can."  This  statement  is  from  a 
great  master  of  this  branch  of  law  (^Attorney- Cieneral  v.  Ded- 
ham  School,  23  Beavan,  354). 

All  the  later  foundations,  viz.,  among  others,  that  of 
Madam  Phoebe  Phillips,  John  Phillips,  Esq.,  and  Samuel 
Abbot,  of  Aug.  31, 1807,  as  well  as  that  of  the  regulations 
of  March  21,  1808,  called  the  statutes  of  the  Associate  Foun- 
dation of  that  date,  must  be  submitted  to  this  test  —  are 
they  consistent  with  the  original  design  of  the  founders,  viz., 
John  Phillips  and  Samuel  Phillips,  founders  of  the  Phillips 
Academy,  of  May  29,  1777,  and  April  21,  1778?  This  was 
the  real  point  of  the  important  case  of  Trustees  of  Phillips 
Academy  v.  King,  12  Mass.,  546,  already  cited  for  another 
purpose.  This  point  is  fully  developed  in  the  case  on  pp. 
559,  560.  The  court  draws  a  sharp  and  well-defined  dis- 
tinction between  these  original  founders  and  all  the  later 
contributors  to  the  institution,  calling  the  latter  "after  bene- 
factors," making  even  John  Phillips  in  his  legacy  of  1795  an 
"after  benefactor,"  as  distinguished  from  the  same  John 
Phillips  in  April  21,  1778,  who  in  his  donation  of  that  date 
was  an  "  original  founder  "  (p.  560,  2d  paragraph,  middle  of 


49 

page).  It  is  declared  that  the  words  "  Calvinistic  Minister," 
used  by  him  in  1795,  are  no  part  of  the  original  foundation 
in  1778. 

We  thus  come  down  to  the  bare  question.  Are  all  the 
specific  creeds  of  the  later  daj's  consistent  with  the  original 
foundation  ?  They  are  only  so,  considered  as  modes  of  "  carr}''- 
ing  out  the  first  and  principal  object  of  the  institution,  viz., 
the  promotion  of  true  piety  and  virtue."  They  are  but  in- 
strumental and  accessories  to  that  principal  design. 

The  "principal  design"  of  the  Founders  will  now  be 
stated  in  some  detail,  with  the  view  of  showing  that  it  is 
derived  from  the  writings  of  John  Locke. 

Resemblance  between  the   Theory/  of  Education  sketched  by 
John  Locke  and  that  of  the  Original  Founders. 

As  has  been  stated,  the  "original  Founders"  were  the 
Hon.  John  Phillips  and  the  Hon.  Samuel  Phillips.  Though 
thoroughly  Christian  men,  they  were  also  men  of  affairs,  and 
attained  political  distinction.  They  not  only  founded  an 
academy  at  Andover,  but  the3^  or  one  of  them,  also  estab- 
lished one  at  Exeter,  New  Hampshire. 

Their  great  desire  was  to  promote  a  sound  education,  and 
to  teach  students  '•''the  great  end  and  real  business  of  living.''^ 
The  italics  are  their  own. 

Their  view  was  that  the  success  of  their  institution  de- 
pended, under  Providence,  much  upon  a  discreet  selection  of 
the  principal  instructor.  He  was  to  be  a  professor  of  the 
Christian  religion ;  of  exemplary  manners ;  good  natural 
abilities  and  literary  acquirements ;  of  a  good  acquaintance 
with  human  nature,  and  of  a  natural  aptitude  for  instruction 
and  government.  — i 

It  was  ever  to  be  considered  as  the  first  and  principal  duty 
of  the  Master  to  regulate  the  tempers,  to  enlarge  the  minds, 
and  form  the  morals  of  the  students.  He  was  to  give  espe- 
cial attention  to  their  health,  to  encourage  a  habit  of  industry, 
and  to  that  end  to  encourage  them  to  perform  some  manual 
labor,  such  as  gardening.  Above  all,  he  was  to  pay  attention 
to  their  minds  and  morals,  considering  that  goodness  without 


50 

knowledge  is  weak  and  feeble,  and  knowledge  without  good- 
ness is  dangerous ;  and  that  the  two  would,  lay  the  surest 
foundation  of  usefulness  to  mankind. 

Accordingly,  he  must  frequently  delineate  the  deformity 
and  odionsness  of  vice,  and  the  beauty  and  amiablenesa  of 
virtue;  the  indispensable  obligation  to  avoid  the  one,  and  to 
love  and  practise  the  other  —  including  the  great  duties  they 
owe  to  God,  their  country,  their  parents,  their  neighbors,  and 
themselves.  He  should  observe  the  varieties  of  their  tem- 
pers and  bring  each  of  them  under  such  discipline  as  tends 
to  develop  them  most  fully  ;  early  enure  them  to  contemplate 
the  various  scenes  incident  to  human  life,  and  furnish  them 
useful  general  maxims  of  conduct. 

It  is  further  required,  in  order  that  the  true -and  funda- 
mental principles  of  Christianity  may  be  cultivated  and  per- 
petuated in  the  Christian  Church,  as  far  as  the  Seminary  has 
influence,  that  not  only  instruction  be  given  in  the  truth  of 
Christianity,  but  certain  special  doctrines  (enumerated)  be 
inculcated,  including  the  doctrines  of  the  Trinity,  the  Fall 
of  Man,  the  necessity  of  an  Atonement,  etc.,  etc.  The  reason 
given  for  this  branch  of  instruction  is  that  man}^  students 
may  be  devoted  to  the  sacred  work  of  the  Gospel  Ministry. 

It  is  at  the  end  stated  that  "in  order  to  prevent  the  smallest 
perversion  of  the  true  intent  of  this  foundation,  t\\Q  first  and 
principal  object  of  the  institution  is  the  piomotion  of  true 
piety  and  virtue  —  the  secondary  object  is  declared  to  be  in- 
struction in  tiie  English,  Latin,  and  Greek  languages,  and 
other.branches  of  knowledge  specified. 

The  Founders  reserved  to  themselves  the  power  during 
their  lives  to  make  rules  for  the  perpetual  government  of  the 
institution,  but  no  rule  subversive  of  the  true  design  should 
be  made. 

Thus,  with  the  most  pains-taking  carefulness  and  frequent 
iteration,  they  announced  that  their  great  aim  was  the  "pro- 
motion of  piety  and  virtue,"  and  the  expected  result  was  to 
teach  the  students  "  the  great  end  and  real  business  of 
living." 

Let  us  now  compare  with  this  the  "Thoughts  on  Educa- 


51 

tion  "  of  John  Locke,  of  some  sixty  or  more  years  before. 
Treatises  on  education  were  not  as  common  then  as  now. 
Locke  treats  of  these  very  topics  as  no  other  writer  of  his 
day  had  done.  Of  course,  he  enters  far  more  into  detail  than 
the  Founders  would  be  likely  to  do,  but  there  is  a  striking 
resemblance  between  the  general  drift  of  each,  too  close  to 
be  attributed  to  accident. 

He,  too,  lays  great  stress  upon  physical  education,  habits 
of  industry,  manual  labor,  and  practice  in  the  art  of  garden- 
ing, mental  and  moral  culture,  repetition  of  lessons  under  the 
eye  of  the  instructor  (strongly  insisted  upon  by  the  Found- 
ers). He  recommends  that  the  instructor  should  study  the 
nature  and  temper  of  each  child,  with  a  view  to  giving  him 
individuality  of  training.  Good  manners  should  be  culti- 
vated by  reiterated  actions  in  their  presence.  Above  all,  his 
advice,  repeated  in  various  forms,  is  that  the  pupils  should  be 
instructed  in  "piety  and  virtue."  "Virtue,"  he  says,  "is 
harder  to  be  got  than  a  knowledge  of  the  world,  and  if  lost 
in  a  young  man  is  seldom  recovered.  Everything  should  be 
beat  to  the  acquisition  of  virtue."  "  That  which  requires 
most  time  and  pains  and  assiduity  is  to  work  into  them" 
(the  young)  "  the  principles  and  practice  of  virtue  and  good 
breeding.  Tliis  is  the  season  that  they  should  be  prepared 
with ;  this  they  had  need  to  be  well  provided  with."  In 
another  place  he  says,  "  I  wish  that  those  who  compl'ain  of 
the  great  decay  of  Christian  piety  and  virtue  everywhere 
.  .  .  would  consider  how  to  retrieve  them  in  the  next  gene- 
ration. This,  I  am  sure,  that  if  the  foundation  be  not  laid 
in  the  foundation  and  principling  of  the  youth,  all  other 
endeavors  will  be  in  vain." 

Then,  in  §  64,  comes  this  fine  utterance:  "It  is  virtue, 
then,  direct  virtue,  which  is  the  hard  and  valuable  part  to 
be  aimed  at  in  education.  .  .  .  All  other  considerations  and 
accomplishments  should  give  way^  and  be  postponed,  to  this. 
This  is  the  solid  and  substantial  good,  which  tutors  should 
not  only  read  lectures  and  talk  of,  but  the  labor  and  art  of 
education  should  furnish  the  mind  with  ?in(\  fasten  there,  and 
never  cease  till  the  young  man  had  a  true  relish  of  it  and 


52 

placed  his  strength,  his  glory,  and  his  pleasure  in  it."  This 
is  the  precise  idea  of  the  Founders  in  their  requirements  of 
inculcation  and  repetition,  while  the  diction  of  Locke  is 
superior. 

Locke's  notion  of  a  good  master  for  the  scholars  is  the  same 
as  that  of  the  Founders,  though  worked  out  with  more  detail. 
He  must  be  a  man  of  good  manners,  knowledge  of  human 
nature,  well  versed  in  the  subjects  to  be  taught,  apt  to  teach, 
etc.  (§  86,  §  87,  §  88). 

The  final  point  to  which  I  refer  in  Locke's  view  is  the 
relation  which  virtue  holds  to  all  other  matters  of  instruction, 
and  that  on  which  it  rests.  He  arranges  all  subjects  of  in- 
struction in  four  classes  as  to  their  relative  importance: 
virtue,  wisdom,  breeding,  and  learning.  Virtue  is  in  the 
first  rank.  He  says:  '^  I  place  virtne  as  the  first  and  most 
necessary  of  those  endowments  that  belong  to  a  man  or  a 
gentleman,  as  absolutely  requisite  to  make  him  valued  and 
beloved  by  others,  acceptable  or  tolerable  to  himself.  With- 
out that,  I  think,  he  will  be  happy  neither  in  this  nor  the 
other  world."     §  129. 

Upon  what  does  he  rest  virtue  ?  The  answer  is  a  true 
notion  of  God,  as  of  the  independent  Supreme  Being,  author 
and  maker  of  all  things,  from  whom  we  receive  all  our  good, 
who  loves  us  and  gives  us  all  things  ;  and  consequent  to  this, 
there  should  be  instilled  into  the  pupils'  mind  a  love  and 
teverence  for  the  Supreme  Being. 

At  the  same  time,  he  does  not  think  tliat  youth  should  be 
too  curious  in  their  notions  about  a  Being  which  all  must 
acknowledge  to  be  incomprehensible.  §  130.  Locke  seems  to 
say  that,  as  between  theological  metaphysics  and  practical 
piety  and  virtue,  preference  is  to  be  given  to  the  latter.  So 
the  Founders,  after  referring  to  great  theological  subjects  as 
to  be  taught,  lay  the  principal  stress  upon  piety  and  virtue, 
and  the  acquirement  of  such  manliness,  sobriet}',  and  good 
sense  as  would  tend  to  form  a  class  of  honorable  and  Chris- 
tian gentlemen,  who  had  "learned  the  great  end  and  real 
business  of  living." 

These  Founders  also  followed  Locke  in  the  tolerance  of 


53 

religious  opinion,  and  in  making  "  piety  and  virtue  "  superior 
to  doctrines.  * 

There  is  thus  a  marked  distinction  between  the  theory  of 
the  Founders  of  1778  as  to  education,  and  that  of  the  creed 
buiklers  of  1807  and  1808 ;  the  first  were  men  of  breadth  of 
view,  conversant  with  the  v/ritings  of  philosophers,  and  par- 
ticularly with  those  of  John  Locke ;  the  others  were  adepts 
in  theoloQ-ical  controversy,  and  determined  to  conserve  the 
precise  technical  forms  of  statement  of  their  day  in  the  in- 
struction of  youth  for  all  time.  Fortunate  it  is,  that  the  law 
of  Massachusetts  holds  that  the  will  of  the  Founders  is  su- 
preme, and  that  the  great  end,  even  of  instruction  in  the 
Theological  Seminary,  grafted  upon  the  original  foundation, 
still  is,  and  must  continue  to  be,  the  promotion  of ''piety  and 
virtue." 

The  result  is  that  there  is  and  can  be  no  "misbehavior,  or 
heterodoxy,"  under  the  Twentieth  Article  of  the  Associates' 
Creed,  on  the  part  of  a  Professor,  unless  he  wanders  from  the 
principal  design  of  the  institution,  which  is  true  piety  and 
virtue.  This  liberal  plan  of  the  "  original  founders "  is 
wholly  in  line  with  the  words  of  John  Robinson  and  Messrs. 
Sewell  and  Prince,  already  quoted,  and  with  the  generally 
progressive  spirit  of  New  England  Theology.  I  admit  that 
there  is  color  for  the  view  that  some  portions  of  the  creeds 
of  August  31,  1807,  and  March  21,  1808,  are  born  of  a  dif- 
ferent  spirit,  and  represent  to  an  extent  what  may  fairly  be 
called  the  intolerance  of  Orthodoxy,  but  the  general  outcome 
of  them  can  be  reconciled  with  a  progressive  view. 

In  a  portion  of  this  argument  I  have  proceeded  upon  the 
view  that  the  Westminster  Catechism  was  imposed  upon  the 
Professors  on  the  Associate  Foundation,  and  have  argued 
that  even  then  the  current  of  religious  thought  and  certain 
qualifying  words  in  the  creeds  do  not  bind  them  to  a  verbal 
acceptance  of  all  its  propositions.  I  have  now  arrived  at  a 
stage  where  I  absolutely  combat  that  proposition,  and  deny 
that  any  Professor,  except  he  be  upon  the  Abbot  Foundation 
(and  he  onl}^  in  a  qualified  manner),  has  any  thing  to  do  with 
the  Shorter  Catechism. 


64 

This  branch  of  the  discussion  naturally  leads  to  a  state- 
ment of  the  origin  and  distinctive  character  of  these  founda- 
tions and  creeds. 

After  the  Legislature  of  Massachusetts  had,  on  June  19, 

1807,  enlarged  the  ■  capacity' of  Phillips  Academy  to  hold 
property,  and  to  use  it  "  consistently  with  the  original  design 
of  the  founders  of  the  Academy,"  the  donation  of  Madam 
Phoebe  Phillips,  John  Phillips,  and  Samuel  Abbot  were  made 
—  August  31,  180X  ;  and  a  separate  donation,  on  March  21, 

1808,  by  Moses  Brown,  William  Bartlett,  and  John  Norris. 
The  first  is  commonly  called  the  Abbot  Foundation ;  the 
second,  the  Associate  Foundation. 

The  Abbot  Foundation. 

The  donors  in  this  matter  gave  twenty  thousand  dollars  to 
the  Trustees,  in  trusty  for  the  establishment  of  a  Theological 
Institution  in  Phillips  Academy.  This  gift  was  accompanied 
with  a  so-called  "  constitution  "  for  the  Seminary,  which, 
however,  from  a  legal  point  of  view,  is  a  "declaration  of 
trust,"  consisting  of  Thirty-four  Articles.  So  far  as  these 
articles  concern  the  management  of  the  institution,  they  may 
be  termed  "  statutes  "  (Blackstone's  Commentaries,  Book  I., 
483,  484),  the  word  "  statutes  "  here  being  used  simply  in 
the  sense  of  rules  or  ordinances.  This  "  constitution  "  re- 
cites, in  its  preamble,  the  leading  purpose  of  the  foundation 
of  1778  as  being  the  "promotion  of  true  piety  and  virtue," 
and  also  refers  to  the  later  bequest  of  John  Phillips  of  1795; 
and  then,  in  the  Eleventh  and  Twelfth  and  Thirteenth 
Articles  proceeds  to  set  forth  the  duties  and  obligations  of 
Professors  in  the  '■'•  Seminary,''''  not  including  (as  is  supposed) 
the  teachers  in  the  Academy  as  it  had  previously  existed  and 
still  continued  to  exist.  The  substance  of  their  requirement 
was  that  the  Professor  should  be  in  communion  with  either 
the  Presbyterian  or  Congregational  Church,  an  honest,  learned, 
and  pious  man,  and  of  sound  and  orthodox  principles  in 
divinity,  according  to  the  system  of  evangelical  doctrines 
stated   in    the    Westminster  Assembly's  Shorter  Catechism 


65 

and  more  concisely  delineated  in  the  Constitution  of  Phillips' 
Academy. 

It  is  due  to  truth  to  say  that  there  is  not  in  the  Constitution 
of  Phillips  Academy ^one  word  concerning  the  Westminster 
Shorter  Catechism.  Certain  doctrines  are  simpl}^  mentioned 
by  way  of  enumeration,  but  none  of  them  are  set  forth  with 
the  definitions  of  the  catechism.  With  due  respect  to  the 
memory  of  these  worthy  donors,  long  since  passed  away,  we 
affirm,  without  fear  of  successful  contradiction,  that  this 
reference  is  unwarranted  by  the  facts,  and  to  uphold  it  in 
this  discussion  is  a  pure  case  of  "  begging  the  question." 

To  resume  the  rules  of  the  "Abbot  Foundation."  The. 
Tw-elfth  Article  provides  that  the  Professor  shall  make  and 
subscril)e  a  solemn  declaration  of  faith  in  divine  revelation, 
and  in  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  Gospel  as  summa- 
rily expressed  in  the  Westminster  Assembly's  Shorter  Cate- 
chism, at  the  same  time  requiring  him  to  maintain  the 
Christian  faith  in  the  discharge  of  the  duties  appertaining  to 
his  office,  according  to  the  best  light  God  shall  give  him.  He 
is  required  to  oppose  certain  specified  heresies  and  errors. 
He  must  repeat,  in  the  presence  of  the  Trustees,  the  declara- 
tion prescribed  in  Article  Twelfth  every  five  years. 

So  much  for  the  Abbot  Foundation.     Next  in  order  is. 

The  Associate   Foundation. 

The  Associate  Foundation  and  its  Statutes  (March  21,  1808). 

The  origin  of  this  foundation  is  a  matter  of  history.  It 
involves  an  account  of  a  long  and  complicated  negotiation 
between  theologians  of  great  ability  and  astuteness  in  draw- 
ing fine-s})un  distinctions.  The  two  parties,  so  far  as  they 
had  opposing  views,  were  respectively  called  Calvinists  and. 
Hopkinsians.  The  former  had  followed  the  doctrines  pf 
John  Calvin  ;  the  latter  modified  the  Calvinistic  view  owing 
to  the  speculations  of  tlie  elder  Jonathan  Edwards  and  other 
acute  metaphysicians.  On  the  points  upon  which  they  dif- 
fered they  could  no  more  coalesce  than  oil  and  water.  The 
Calvinists,    however,    were    in    possession    of    the    Phillips 


56 

Academy  and  of  the  embryo  Theological  Institution.  The 
Hopkinsians  had  no  Theological  Seminary,  though  as  a  party 
they  were  extremely  desirous  to  have  one ;  still  two  semina- 
ries were  not  needed  at  that  time  in  that  vicinity,  and  would 
be  likely  to  languish  or  to  die  out  for  want  of  adequate  sup-  - 
port.  One  might  be  made  strong  and  efficient.  The  inter- 
ests of  the  two  parties  drove  them  together.  Neither  would 
consent,  specifically,  to  abandon  its  views.  The  great  prob- 
lem was  to  find  some  form  of  words  under  which  each  party 
could  claim  that  its  own  views  were  tenable.  Comprehensive, 
or,  one  might  perhaps  be  pardoned  for  saying,  elusive  phrases 
were  sought  for.  Words  were  inserted  which  would  satisfy 
the  Hopkinsians ;  old  phrases  satisfactory  to  the  Calvinists 
were  not  stricken  out.  The  contradictory  element  in  them 
was,  perhaps,  not  perceived.  If  observed,  it  was  overlooked. 
There  then  emerged  from  the  struggle  the  Associate  Creed  — 
something  new  and  unexampled  in  religious  creeds  of  modern 
days.  When  we  look  at  the  Hopkinsian  statements  crowded 
in  among  the  Calvinistic  propositions,  one  is  reminded  of  a 
phrase  used  by  Edmund  Burke:  The  clauses  are  "crossly 
indented  and  whimsically  dovetailed." 

I  shall  soon  proceed  to  compare  this  creed,  step  by  step, 
with  the  Shorter  Catechism.  But  I  have  now  reached  the 
point  where  it  can  be  affirmed  that  no  statement  in  either  of 
these  creeds  can  change  the  bearing  of  the  original  founda- 
tion of  1778,  not  even  though  the  heirs  of  all  the  founders 
consent;  for  the  law  of  Massachusetts  still  declares,  by  the 
statute  of  July  19,  1807,  that  every  thing  shall  be  done  con- 
sistent with  the  original  design  of  the  founders. 

That  statute  is  the  sheet-anchor  of  Andover  Theological 
Seminary.  Nothing  done  by  the  trustees,  founders,  or  others 
can  make  the  smallest  alteration  in  the  principal  design,  viz., 
the  promotion  of  piety  and  virtue.  Before  that  can  be  done 
the  people  of  Massachusetts  must  signify  in  a  legal  and 
official  way  what  their  v/ishes  are,  and  repeal  that  beneficent 

statute. 

The  history  of  the  negotiations  are  stated  at  length  in  the 
work  of  Dr.  Leonard  Woods  upon  the  history  of  Andover 


57 


Seminary.    It  does  not  fall  within  my  purpose  to  refer  further 
to  this  work,  leaving  its  consideration  to  others. 

Tlie  Associate  framers  of  the  statutes  incorporated  iyito  their 
creed  such  parts  of  the  Westmmster  Shorter  Catechism  as  they 
approved^  rejecting  others,  and  made  their  creed  a  substitute 
for  the  catechism. 

In  order  to  show  the  truth  of  the  above  proposition,  I  place 
the  material  part  of  the  catechism  and  this  creed  in  parallel 
columns,  italicizing  some  of  the  leading  passages  incorporated. 
It  should  be  observed  that  while  the  catechism  is  expos^itory, 
and  contains  many  definitions,  the  creed  proceeds  mostly  by 
way  of  enumeration,  as  the  definitions  are  no  doubt  assumed 
to  be  known  by  the  Professors,  who  are  to  be  reoarded  as 
experts. 

In  the  column  giving  the  catechism  the  questions  are  omit- 
ted, as  the  answers  are  intelligible  without  them.  The 
Roman  numbers  correspond  with  the  numbering  of  the 
questions. 


Westminster  Shorter   Catechism. 

ft 

I.  Man's  chief  end  is  to  glorify 
God  and  enjoy  him  forever. 

II.  The  Word  of  God  which  is 
contained  in  the  Scriptures  of  the 
Old  and  New  Testament  is  the  only 
rule  to  direct  us  how  we  may  glorify 
and  enjoy  him. 

III.  The  Scriptures  principally 
teach  what  man  is  to  believe  concern- 
ing God,  and  what  duty  God  requires 
of  man. 

IV.  God  is  a  spirit,  infinite,  eter- 
nal, and  unchangeable  in  his  being, 
wisdom,  power,  holiness,  justice,  good- 
ness, and  truth. 


Creed  of  Associate 
Founders. 

I  believe  that  there 
is  one  and  but  one  liv- 
ing and  true  God ; 
that  the  Word  of  Cod 
contained  in  the  Scrip- 
tures of  the  Old  and 
New  Testament  is  the 
only  perfect  rule  of 
faith  and  practice  ; 
that  agreeably  to 
those  Scriptures  God 
is  a  spirit,  infinite, 
eternal,  and  unchange- 
able in  his  being,  wis- 


68 


V.  There  is  hut  one  only,  the  living 
and  true  God. 

VI.  There  are  three  persons  in  the 
Godhead,  the  Father,  the  Son,  and 
the  Holy  Ghost,  and  these  three  are 
one  God,  the  same  in  substance,  equal 
in  power  and  glory. 

VII.  The  decrees  of  God  are  his 
eternal  purpose  according  to  the 
counsel  of  his  will,  whereby  for  his 
own  glor}'  he  hath  foreordained  what- 
soever cometh  to  pass. 

VIII.  God  executeth  his  decrees 
in  the  works  of  his  creation  and  Prov- 
idence. 

IX.  The  work  of  his  creation  is 
God's  making  all  thino^s  out  of  noth- 
ing  by  the  word  of  his  power  in  the 
space  of  six  days,  and  all  very 
good. 

X.  God  created  man,  male  and  fe- 
male, after  his  own  image,  in  knowl- 
edge, righteousness,  and  holiness,  with 
dominion  over  the  creatures. 

XI.  God's  works  of  Providence  are 
his  most  holy,  wise,  and  powerful 
preserving  and  governing  all  his  crea- 
tures and  all  their  actions. 

XII.  When  God  had  created  man, 
he  entered  into  a  covenant  of  life  with 
him,  upon  condition  of  perfect  obedi- 
ence, forbidding  him  to  eat  of  the  tree 
of  knowledge  of  good  or  evil  upon 
pain  of  death. 

XIII.  Our  first  parents,  left  to  the 
freedom  of  their  own  Avill,  fell  from 
the  estate  wherein  they  were  created 
by  sinning  against  God. 


(io?w,  poiver,  holiness, 
justice,  goodness,  and 
truth;  that  in  the  God- 
head there  are  three 
persons,  the  Father, 
the  Son,  and  the  Holy 
Ghost,  and  that  these 
three  are  one  God,  the 
same  in  substance, 
equal  in  power  and 
glory; 


That  God  created  man 
after  his  own  image, 
in  hnoivledge,  right- 
eousness, and  holiness; 
that  the  glory  of  God 
is  man's  chief  end,  and 
the  enjoyment  of  God 
his  supreme  happi- 
ness ;  that  this  enjoy- 
ment is  derived  solely 
from  conformity  of 
heart  and  cliaracter 
to  the   will   of  God  ; 


69 


XIV.  Sin  is  any  want  of  conformit}^ 
to  or  transgression  of  the  laws  of 
God. 

XV.  The  sin  whereby  our  first 
parents  fell  from  the  estate  wherein 
they  were  created  was  their  eating 
the  forbidden  fruit. 

XVI.  The  covenant  being  raade 
with  Adam,  not  only  for  himself,  but 
for  his  posterity,  all  mankind  descend- 
ing from  him  by  ordinary  generation 
sinned  in  him,  and  fell  with  him  in 
his  first  transgression. 

XVII.  The  fall  brought  mankind 
into  a  state  of  sin  and  misery. 

XVIII.  The  sinfulness  of  that  es- 
tate whereinto  man  fell  consists  in  the 
guilt  of  Adam's  first  sin,  the  want  of 
original  righteousness,  and  the  cor- 
ruption of  his  whole  nature,  which  is 
commonly  called  original  sin,  together 
with  all  actual  transgressions  which 
proceed  from  it. 

XIX.  All  mankind  by  their  fall 
lost  communion  with  God,  are  under 
the  wrath  and  curse,  and  so  made 
liable  to  all  the  miseries  of  this  life 
and  the  pains  of  hell  forever. 


that  Adam,  the  feder- 
al head  and  represen- 
tative of  the  human 
race,  was  placed  in  a 
state  of  probation,  and 
that   in    consequence 
of  his  disobedience  all 
his  descendants  were 
constituted     sinners ; 
that  by  nature  every 
man  is  personally  de- 
praved,   destitute    of 
holiness,  and  opposed 
to  God,  and  that  pre- 
viously to  the  renew- 
ing   agency    of     the 
divine    spirit   all    his 
moral  actions  are  ad- 
verse to  the  character 
and    glory    of    God ; 
that,    being    morally 
incapable  of 'recover- 
ing the  image  of  his 
Creator    which     was 
lost  in   Adam,  every 
man  is  justly  exposed 
to  eternal  damnation, 
so  that  except  a  man 
be  born  again  he  can- 
not see  the  kingdom 
of  God : 


60 

XX.  God  having,  out  of  his  mere  That  Grod,  of  his 
good  pleasure,  from  all  eternity  elected  7nere  good  pleasure, 
some  to  everlasting  life,  did  enter  into  from  all  eternity  elect- 
a  covenant  of  grace  to  deliver  them  ed  some  to  everlasting 
out  of  the  state  of  sin  and  misery,  and  life  ;  and  that  he  en- 
to  bring  them  into  a  state  of  salvation  tered  into  a  covenant 
by  a  redeemer.  of    grace     to    deliver 

XXI.  The  only  redeemer  of  God's  them  out  of  this  state 
elect  is  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who  of  siyi  and  misery  by 
being  the  eternal  son  of  God,  became  a  redeemer.  That  the 
man,  and  so  was  and  continues  to  be  only  redeemer  of  the 
God  and  Man,  in  two  distinct  natures  elect  is  the  eternal  son 
and  one  person  forever.  of  God,  who  for  this 

XXII.  Christ,  the  son  of  God,  be-  purpose  became  man, 
came  man  by  taking  to  himself  a  true  and  continues  to  be 
body  and  a  reasonable  soul,  being  con-  God  and  7nan  in  two 
ceived  by  the  power  of  the  Holy  distinct  natures  and 
Ghost  in  the  womb  of  tlie  Virgin  oyie  jjerson  forever; 
Mar}',  and  born  of  her,  yet  without  that  Christ  as  our  re- 
sin, deemer    executeth    the 

XXIII.  Christ,  as  our  redeemer,  office  of  a  prophet, 
executes  the  offices  of  a  prophet,  of  a  p)riest,  and  king  ;  that 
priest,  and  of  a  king,  both  in  his  es-  agreeably  to  the  cov- 
tate  of  humiliation  and  exaltation.  enant  of  redemption, 

XXIV.  Christ  executes  the  office  the  Son  of  God,  and 
of  a  prophet  by  revealing  to  us,  by  his  he  alone,  by  his  suf- 
word  and  spirit,  the  will  of  God  for  fering  and  death,  has 
our  salvation.  made*  atonement   for 

XXV.  Christ  executeth  the  office  the  sins  of  all  men  ; 
of  a  priest  in  his  once  offering  up  of  that  repentance,  faith, 
himself  a  sacrifice  to  satisfy  divine  and  holiness  are  the 
justice  and  reconcile  us  to  God,  and  in  personal  requisites  in 
making  continual  intercession  for  us.  the  Gospel  scheme  of 

XXVI.  Christ  executeth  the  office  salvation  ;  that  the 
of  a  king  in  subduing  us  to  himself,  righteousness  of 
in  rulincr  and  defendiuGj  us,  and  in  re-  Christ  is  the  onlv 
straining  and  conquering  all  his  and  ground  of  a  sinner's 
our  enemies.  justification;  thatthis 


61 


XXVIT.  Christ's  humiliation  con- 
sisted in  liis  being  born,  and  that  in  a 
low  condition  made  under  the  law, 
underQ-oing  the  miseries  of  this  life, 
the  wrath  of  God,  and  the  cursed 
death  of  the  cross,  in  being  buried  and 
in  continuing  under  the  power  of 
death  for  a  time. 

XXVJII.  Christ's  exaltation  con- 
sists in  his  rising  again  from  the  dead 
on  the  third  day,  in  ascending  up  to 
Heaven,  and  in  sitting  at  the  right 
hand  of  God  the  Father,  and  in  com- 
ing to  judge  the  world  at  the  last 
day. 

XXIX.  We  are  made  partakers  of 
the  redemption  purchased  by  Christ, 
by  the  effectual  application  of  it  to 
us  by  the  Holy  Spirit. 

XXX.  The  Spirit  appHeth  to  us 
the  redemption  purchased  by  Christ 
by  working  faith  in  us,  and  thereby 
uniting  us  to  Christ  in  our  effectual 
calling. 

XXXI.  Effectual  calling  is  the 
work  of  God's  spirit,  whereby  con- 
vincing us  of  our  sin  and  misery,  en- 
lightening our  minds  in  the  knowledge 
of  Christ,  and  renewing  our  wills,  he 
doth  persuade  and  enable  us  to  em- 
brace Jesus  Christ,  freely  offered  to 
us  in  the  Gospel. 

XXXII.  They  that  are  effectually 
called  do  in  this  life  partake  of  justi- 
fication, adoption,  and  sanctification, 
and  the  several  benefits  which  do  in 
this  life  either  accompany  or  flow 
from  them. 


righteousness  is  re- 
ceived through  faith, 
and  that  this  faith  is 
the  gift  of  God,  so 
tliat  our  salvation  is 
wholly  of  grace;  that 
no  means  whatever 
can  change  the  heart 
of  a  sinner  and  make 
it  holy ;  that  regener- 
ation and  sanctifica- 
tion are  effects  of  the 
creating  and  renewing 
agency  of  the  Holy 
Spirit ;  and  that  su- 
preme love  to  God 
constitutes  the  essen- 
tial difference  be- 
tween saints  and  sin- 
ners ;  that  by  convin- 
cing us  of  our  sin 
and  misery,  enlight- 
ening our  minds, 
iVQrlcing  faith  in  us^ 
and  renewing:  our 
wills,  the  Holy  Spirit 
makes  us  partakers  of 
the  benefit  of  redemp- 
tion ;  and  that  the 
ordinary  means  by 
which  these  benefits 
are  communicated  to 
us  are  the  word,  sac- 
raments and  prayer ; 
that  repentance  unto 
life,  faith  to  feed  upon 
Christ,  love  to  God, 
and    new    obedience 


62 


XXXIII.  Justification  is  an  act  of 
God's  free  grace,  wherein  he  pardon- 
eth  all  our  sins  and  accepteth  us  as 
rigliteous  in  his  sight,  only  for  the 
righteousness  of  Christ,  imputed  to 
us  and  leceived  by  faith  alone. 

XXXIV.  Adoption  is  an  act  of 
God's  free  grace  whereby  we  are  re- 
ceived into  the  number  and  have  a 
right  to  all  the  piivileges  of  the  Sons 
of  God. 

XXXV.  Sanctification  is  the  work 
of  God's  free  grace,  whereby  we  are 
renewed  in  the  whole  man  after  the 
lAiage  of  God,  and  are  enabled  more 
and  more  to  die  unto  sin  and  live  unto 
righteousness. 

XXXVI.  The  benefits  which  in 
this  life  do  either  accompany  or  flow 
from  justification,  adoption  and  sanc- 
tification are  assurance  of  God's  love, 
peace  of  conscience,  joy  in  the  Holy 
Ghost,  increase  of  grace,  and  perse- 
verance therein  to  the  end. 

XXXVII.  The  souls  of  believers 
are  at  their  death  made  perfect  in 
holiness,  and  do  immediately  pass  into 
glory,  and  their  bodies  being  still 
united  to  Christ,  do  rest  in  their 
graves  till  the  resurrection. 

XXXVIII.  At  the  resurrection, 
believers  b^ing  called  up  to  glory  shall 
be  openly  acknowledged  and  ac- 
quitted at  the  day  of  judgment,  and 
made  perfectly  blessed  in  the  full  en- 
joyment of  God  to  all  eternity. 

XXXIX.  The  duty  that  God  re- 
quire th  of  man  is  obedience  to  His 
revealed  will. 


are  the  appropriate 
qualifications  for  the 
Lord's  Supper  ;  and 
that  a  Christian 
Church  ouGfht  to  ad- 

c> 

mit  no   person  to  its 
holy  communion   be- 
fore he  exhibits  credi- 
ble   evidence    of    his 
godly  sincerity ;  that 
perseverance    in    ho- 
liness   is    the    only 
method  of  making  our 
calling    and    election 
sure ;    and    that    the 
final  perseverance  of 
saints,  though  it  is  the 
effect  of   the  special 
operation  of  God  on 
their  hearts,  yet  neces- 
sarily   implies     their 
own     watchful     dili- 
gence; that  the^  who 
are    effectually    called 
do  in  this  life  partake 
of  justification,  adop- 
tion, and  sanctification, 
and  the  several  benefits 
which    do    either    ac- 
company or 
flow  from    them   that 
the    souls  of  believers 
are  at  their  death  made 
perfect  in  holiness  and 
do    immediately  pass 
into   glory,  that   their 
bodies,  being  still  unit- 
ed to    Christ,  will  at 
the     resurrection     be 


63 


XL.  The  rule  wliich  God  at  first 
revealed  to  man  for  his  obedience  was 
the  moral  law. 

XLI.  The  moral  law  is  summarily 
comprehended  in  the  ten  command- 
ments. 

XLir.  to  LXXXL,  both  inclusive, 
concern  the  ten  commandments. 

LXXXII.  No  mere  man  since  the 
fall  is  able  in  this  life  perfectly  to 
keep  the  commandments  of  God,  but 
dail}'-  doth  break  them  in  thought, 
word,  and  deed. 

LXXXIII.  Some  sins  in  them- 
selves, and  by  reason  of  several  aggra- 
vations, are  more  heinous  in  the  sight 
of  God  than  others. 

LXXXIV.  Every  sin  deserveth 
God's  wrath  and  curse,  both  in  this 
life  and  that  which  is  to  come. 

LXXXV.  To  escape  the  wrath  and 
curse  of  God  due  to  us  for  sin,  God 
requireth  of  us  faith  in  Jesus  Christ, 
repentance  unto  life,  with  the  diligent 
use  of  all  outward  means  whereby 
Christ  communicateth  to  us  the  bene- 
fits of  redemption. 

LXXXVI.  Faith  in  Jesus  Christ 
is  a  saving  grace  whereby  we  receive 
and  rest  upon  Him  alone  for  salva- 
tion as  He  is  offered  to  us  in  the 
Gospel. 

LXXXVH.  Repentance  unto  life 
is  a  saving  grace  whereby  a  sinner,  out 
of  the  true  sense  of  his  sin  and  appre- 
hension of  the  mercy  of  God  in  Christ, 
doth  with  grief  and  hatred  of  his 
bin  turn  from  it  unto  God  with  full 


raised  up  to  glory,  and 
that  the  saints  will  be 
made  perfectly  blessed 
in  the  fidl  enjoyment 
of  God  to  all  eternity^ 
but  that  the  wicked 
will  awake  to  shame 
and  everlastiiiix  con- 
tempt, and  with  devils 
be  plunged  into  the 
lake  that  burnetii  with 
fi  r  e  a  n  d  brimstone 
for  ever  and  ever.  I, 
moreover,  believe 
that  God,  according 
to  the  counsel  of  His 
oivn  will  and  for  His 
oivn  glory,  hath  fore- 
ordained ivhatsoever 
cometli  to  pass,  and 
that  all  beings,  ac- 
tions, and  events,  both 
in  the  natural  and 
moral  world,  are  un- 
der His  providential 
and  moral  direction ; 
that  God's  decrees 
perfectly  consist  with 
human  liberty ;  God's 
universal  agency  with 
the  agency  of  man, 
and  man's  depend- 
ence with  his  account- 
ability ;  that  man  has 
understanding  and 
corporeal  strength  to 
do  all  that  God  re- 
quires of  liim  ;  so  that 
nothin<x  but  the  sin- 


64 

purpose  of  and  endeavor  after  new     ner's  aversion  to  ho- 
obedience.  liness    prevents     his 

LXXXVIII.  The  outward  and  or-  salvation ;  that  it  is 
dinary  means  whereby  Christ  com-  the  prerogative  of 
municateth  to  us  the  benefits  of  re-  God  to  bring  good 
demption,  are  his  ordhiances,  especial-  out  of  evil,  and  that 
ly  the  word,  sacraments,  and  prayer,  He  will  cause  the 
all  of  which  are  made  effectual  to  the  wrath  and  rage  of 
elect  for  salvation.  wicked      men       and 

LXXXIX.  The  Spirit  of  God  mak-  devils  to  praise  Him, 
eth  the  reading,  but  especially  the  and  that  all  the  evil 
preaching  of  the  word,  an  effectual  which  has  existed,  and 
means  of  convincing  and  converting  which  will  forever  ex- 
sinners,  and  of  building  them  up  in  ist  in  the  moral  sys- 
holiness  and  comfort,  through  faith  tem,  will  eventually 
unto  salvation.  be  made  to  promote 

XC.  That  the  word  may  become  a  most  important  pur- 
effectual  to  salvation,  we  must  attend  pose  under  the  wise 
thereunto  with  diligence,  preparation,  and  perfect"  adminis- 
and  prayer,  receive  it  with  faith  and  tration  of  that  Al- 
love,  lay  it  up  in  our  hearts,  and  mighty  Being  who 
practise  it  in  our  lives.  will  cause  all  things 

XCI.  The   sacraments  become   ef-     to  work  for  His  own 
fectual  means  of  salvation,  not  from     glory,  and  thus  fulfil 
any  virtue  in  them,  or  in  him  that     all  His  pleasure, 
doth  administer  them,  but  only  by  the 
blessino-  of  Christ  and  the  working 
of  His  Spirit  in   them  that  by  faith 
receive  them. 

XCH.  A  sacrament  is  a  holy  ordi- 
nance instituted  b}^  Christ,  wherein 
by  sensible  signs  Christ  and  the  ben- 
efits of  the  New  Covenant  are  repre- 
sented sealed  and  applied  to  believ- 
ers. 

XCni.  The  Sacraments  of  the  New 
Testament  are  Baptism  and  the  Lord's 
Supper. 


65 


XCIV.  Baptism  is  a  Sacrament 
wherein  the  washing  with  water,  in 
the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  tlie 
Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  doth 
signify  and  seal  our  ingrafting  into 
Christ,  and  partaking  of  the  benefits 
of  the  Covenant  of  grace,  and  our 
enofao'ement  to  be  the  Lord's. 

XCV.  Baptism  is  not  to  be  admin- 
istered to  any  that  are  out  of  the  visible 
Church  till  they  profess  their  faith  in 
Christ  and  obedience  to  Him  ;  but  the 
infants  of  such  as  are  members  of 
the  visible  Church  are  to  be  baptized. 

XCVI.  The  Lord's  Supper  is  a  Sac- 
rament, wherein  by  the  giving  and 
receiving  bread  and  wine  according 
to  Christ's  appointment  His  death  is 
shewed  forth ;  and  the  worthy  receiv- 
ers are,  not  after  a  corporal  and  car- 
nal manner,  but  by  faith,  made  par- 
takers of  His  body  and  blood  with  all 
His  benefits  to  their  spiritual  nourish- 
ment and  growtli  in  grace. 

XCVIL  It  is  required  of  them  that 
would  worthily  partake  of  the  Lord's 
Supper  that  they  examine  themselves 
of  their  knowledge  to  discern  the 
Lord's  body,  of  their  faith  to  feed 
upon  him,  of  their  repentance,  love, 
and  new  obedience,  lest  coming  un- 
worthil}^  they  eat  and  drink  judgment 
to  themselves. 

XCVIIL  Prayer  is  an  offering  up 
of  our  desires  to  God,  for  things  agree- 
able to  his  will,  in  the  name  of  Christ, 
with  confession  of  our  sins  and  thank- 
ful acknowledgment  of  his  mercies. 


And  furthermore,  I 
do  solemnly  promise 
that  I  will  open  and 
explain  the  Scriptures 
to  my  pupils  with  in- 
tegrity and  faithful- 
ness ;  that  I  will  main- 
tain and  inculcate  the 
Christian  faith  as  ex- 
pressed by  me  in  the 
creed  now  repeated, 
together  with  all  the 
other  doctrines  and 
duties  of  our  holy  re- 


66 


XCIX.  The  whole  Word  of  God  is 
of  use  to  direct  us  in  prayer ;  but  the 
special  rule  of  direction  is  that  form 
of  prayer  which  Christ  taught  his  dis- 
ciples, commonly  called  the  Lord's 
Prayer.  (C.  to  CVI.,  both  inclusive, 
devoted  to  analysis  of  Lord's  Prayer.) 


ligion  so  far  as  may 
appertain  to  my  office, 
according  to  the  best 
light  God  shall  give 
me,  and  in  opposition, 
not  only  to   atheists 
and   infidels,   but    to 
Jews,    Papists,     Ma- 
hometans, Arians,  Pe- 
lagians, Antinomians, 
Arminians,  Socinians, 
Sabellians,      Unitari- 
ans,   and    Universal- 
ists,  and  to  all  other 
heresies    and    errors, 
ancient    or    modern, 
which    may    be     op- 
posed to  the  Gospel 
of  Christ  or  hazardous 
to  the  souls  of  men  ; 
that  by   my  instruc- 
tion, counsel,  and  ex- 
ample I  will  endeav- 
or  to    promote    true 
piety  and  godliness; 
that  I  will  consult  the 
good   of  this  institu- 
tion and  the  peace  of 
the    churches  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  on 
all  occasions ;  and  that 
I  will  religiously  con- 
form to  the  constitu- 
tion and  laws  of  this 
Seminary,  and  to  the 
Statutes  of  this  foun- 
dation. 


67 

No  candid  person  can  fail  to  acknowledge,  on  contrasting 
these  two  instruments,  that  the  latter  is  intended  as  a  substi- 
tute for  the  former.  The  Westminster  Shorter  Catechism 
and  the  Associate  Creed  at  Andover  cannot  possibly  be  recon- 
ciled. To  assert  that  they  can  be,  after  due  examination,  is 
to  act  in  bad  faith. 

Nothing  is  so  notable  as  the  statement  in  the  Associate 
Creed  that,  "agreeably  to  the  covenant  of  redemption,  the 
Son  of  God  and  he  alone,  by  his  suffering  and  death,  has 
made  atonement  for  the  sins  of  all  men.''''  This  is  in  abso- 
lute contrast  with  the  doctrine  of  limited  atonement  for  a 
few  of  the  elect.  There  is  no  trace  of  this  doctrine  of  uni- 
versal atonement  in  the  Westminster  Shorter  Catechism,  nor 
in  other  creeds  adopted  in  England  at  that  time.  Found 
where  it  is,  it  is  a  breath  of  the  sweet  air  of  heaven  over 
a  barren  waste  where  even  the  Rock  of  Israel  scarcely  casts  a 
shadow  to  allay  the  fierce  and  constant  heats  that  beat  upon 
the  unconverted.  True,  John  Milton,  with  poetic  insight, 
perceived  it  when  in  his  early  youth  he  sang  his  glorious 
hymn  upon  the  Nativity,  coupling  his  rejoicings  with  a  far- 
seeing  prophecy  : 

"  Yea,  truth  and  justice  then 
Will  down  return  to  men, 
Orbed  in  a  rainbow,  and  like  glories  wearing; 
Mercy  will  sit  between, 
Throned  in  celestial  sheen. 

With  radiant  feet  the  tissued  clouds  down-steering; 
And  heav'n,  as  at  some  festival, 
Will  open  wide  the  gates  of  her  high  palace-hall." 

Yes,  open  wide  and  forever,  as  the  festival  will  be  everlast- 
ing. No  doubt  this  was  regarded  in  his  time  as  the  glowing 
rhapsody  of  fervid  youth.  Only  a  few  men  saw  this  for  a 
lonor  time  in  New  England,  but  these  Associates  saw  it,  re- 
joiced  at  it,  hung  it  up  as  their  banner,  and  inserted  it  in  this 
creed.  For  many  years  these  five  Professors  have  been  work- 
ing out  deductions  from  this  immortal  principle.  Then  there 
are  three  leading  postulates  which  they  well  might  pin  up  on 
the  walls  of  Andover,  as  the  great  Luther  raised  his  theses 


68 

aloft ;  three  great  and  central  docti'ines,  everywhere  pre- 
sented by  them  —  the  universality  of  sin,  an  universal  atone- 
ment, and  the  indispensableness  of  faith.  Not  one  of  these 
can  be  spared.  They  are  to  be  inscribed  on  the  banners  of 
the  great  Christian  army.  What  minor  points  they  believe 
or  hope  for,  such  as  proba,tion  after  death,  are  inferences  or 
deductions  from  these  great  central  truths.  Such  inferences 
are  not  central,  but  inferior  and  subordinate. 

And  yet  here  are  these  prosecutors  demanding  that  the 
respondent  shall  be  an  "  Orthodox  and  consistent  Calvin- 
ist."  Orthodox  and  consistent  Calvinist,  indeed  !  Why,  in 
this  Andover  Associate  Creed  is  the  very  principal  proposi- 
tion against  which  John  Calvin  struggled  with  all  his  might. 
If  permitted,  he  would  lift  himself  from  his  grave  to  rebuke 
the  utterance  that  Christ  died  for  the  sins  of  all  men.  He 
fell  back  on  God's  eternal,  sovereign  purpose  whereby  he  has 
predestinated  some  to  eternal  life,  while  the  rest  of  mankind 
are  predestinated  to  condemnation  and  eternal  death.  Those 
only,  he  argues,  whom  God  has  chosen  to  life  he  effectually 
calls  to  salvation,  and  are  kept  by  him  in  effectual  grace  and 
holiness  to  the  end  (Institutes,  Book  III.).  And  yet  in  this 
Andover  Creed  is  imbedded  the  proposition  that  Christ  made 
atonement  for  the  sins  of  all  men.  It  was  on  this  very  point 
that  the  Saxon  Visitation  Articles  of  the  year  1592  contested 
Calvinism,  affirming  that  Christ  died  for  all  men,  and  as  the 
Lamb  of  God  took  away  the  sins  of  the  whole  world ;  con- 
demning, in  terms,  it  must  be  admitted,  with  some  bitterness 
of  expression,  the  Calvinistic  doctrine  as  heretical  that  Christ 
did  not  die  for  all  men,  but  only  for  the  elect.  The  expres- 
sion in  the  Andover  Creed  that  in  consequence  of  Adam's 
disobedience  all  his  descendants  were  "  constituted  sinners  " 
would  have  been  abhorrent  to  the  nature  of  Calvin.  His 
was  a  frank  and  outspoken  nature  —  despotic  and  intolerant, 
it  is  true,  but  never  using  words  to  conceal  his  thoughts,  nor 
did  he  ever  take  an  unfair  advantage  of  an  antagonist.  The 
Andover  Creed  does  not  represent  the  original  seamless  robe 
of  Calvinism,  but  rather  Joseph's  coat  of  varied  colors ;  one 
patch  of  royal  purple  in  its  very  centre,  one  wholly  colorless, 


69 

viz.,  the  "  corporeal  strength  "  to  repent,  surrounded,  it  may 
be,  by  a  dark,  cold  border  of  unmitigated  Calvinism. 

Some  one  may  ask.  Why,  then,  did  the  creed-builders 
require  a  professor  to  be  an  "orthodox  and  consistent  Cal- 
vinist  "  ?  That  is  one  of  the  mysteries  of  the  case.  Many 
men  complain  of  tlie  mysteries  of  theology  ;  they,  however, 
are  trifling  when  compared  with  the  mj^steries  of  theological 
creeds ;  and  the  Andover  creed  is  the  most  m3'sterious  of 
all. 

In  whatever  sense  the  phrase  "  Orthodox  and  Consistent 
Calvinism  "  is  used  by  the  associates,  it  is  certainly  no  part 
of  the  creed  to  be  taken  by  the  respondent.  It  is  simply 
descriptive  of  a  professor's  qualities,  and  to  be  considered  by 
the  trustees  at  the  time  of  his  election,  in  the  same  way  as 
another  requirement  in  the  same  sentence,  that  he  should  be 
a  "  Master  of  Arts."  I  can  see  no  other  meaning  to  the  phrase 
"  Orthodox  and  Consistent  Calvinism,"  as  here  used,  except 
compliance  with  the  creed. 

I  also  insist  upon  the  validity  of  the  defence  made  by  Pro- 
fessor Smyth  (filed  November  30,  1886),  to  the  effect  that 
the  words  of  the  associate  founders  expressly  place  him  upon 
their  creed,  and  their  creed  alone,  and  that  by  a  fair  con- 
struction of  their  words  the  intention  was  to  exclude  the 
Westminster  Shorter  Catechism.  This  remark  applies  to  all 
the  professors  except  Dr.  Harris.  The  fact  that  Professor 
Smyth  and  other  professors  on  the  associate  foundation  have 
taken  that  declaration  alone  before  the  Board  of  Trustees 
and  the  Board  of  Visitors,  is  very  cogent  and  decisive.  It  is 
a  settled  rule  of  construction  that  contemporaneous  practice 
is  "very  strong  in  law"  (Broom's  Legal  Maxims,  608;  1 
Kent's  Comm.,  465).  Moreover,  as  former  Boards  of  Visitors 
have  given  a  construction  of  this  kind  to  the  words  of  the 
associate  foundation,  it  would  be  unjust  to  the  respondent 
to  adopt  a  different  view,  as  he  has  made  his  declaration 
according  to  the  construction  accepted  by  all  as  proper  at  the 
time  it  was  made. 


70 


Charges  Reviewed. 

I  only  propose  in  a  brief  way  to  go  over  the  charges  under 
Number  IV.  (Amended  Complaint),  as  they  will  receive 
ample  and  full  refutation  at  the  hands  of  Professor  Smyth. 

It  is  proper  to  make  a  preliminary  remark  applicable  to  all 
the  charges.  The  creed  of  the  associate  founders  is,  as  has 
been  already  shown,  purely  an  educational  creed.  It  has  no 
support  or  analogy  in  any  religious  historic  creed.  It  is  not 
imposed  upon  the  professors  as  religious  men  or  members  of 
churches,  but  as  teachers.  This  is  shown  in  the  promise  as 
follows :  "  I  will  open  and  maintain  and  explain  the  Scrip- 
tures to  my  pupils  with  integrity  and  faithfulness ;  I  will 
maintain  and  inculcate  the  Christian  faith  as  expressed  in  the 
creed  by  me  now  repeated,  together  with  all  the  other  doc- 
trines and  duties  of  our  holy  religion  so  far  as  may  appertain 
to  my  office  according  to  the  best  light  God  shall  give  me," 
etc.  The  words  "maintain"  and  "inculcate,"  as  here  em- 
ployed, refer  solely  to  acts  done  in  the  course  of  instruction. 
The  word  "maintain,"  as  here  used,  means  to  "assert  as  a 
tenet "  (Worcester's  Dictionary).  The  word  "  inculcate," 
equivalent  "to  enforce  on  the  mind  by  frequent  repetition  " 
(same  dictionary)  is  peculiarly  applicable  to  instruction  in 
the  class-room.  From  this  point  of  view,  I  claim  that  cita- 
tions from  the  work  called  "  Progressive  Orthodoxy,"  or  from 
editorial  articles  in  the  Andover  Revieiv^  are  without  perti- 
nence in  establishing  the  charges. 

But  if  I  am  wrong  in  this  resjject,  I  still  claim  that  the 
extracts  from  the  book  and  Review  articles  do  not  establish 
the  propositions  for  which  they  are  cited.  They  are  wrenched 
from  their  connections.  The  context  is  not  taken  into  account. 
There  is  no  rule  better  settled  in  all  interpretation  than  that 
the  context  is  to  be  regarded.  It. is  not  a  rule  of  law  merely, 
but  of  logic,  fair  dealing,  and  common  honesty  (Lieber  on 
Hermeneutics  (Third  or  Hammond's  Edition,  1880),  pp.  114, 
115  ;  1  Kent's  Comm.,  461,  462). 

I  now  proceed  with  the  specifications. 

First  Specification.  —  In  the  article  itself  cited  to  sustain 


71 

this  specification,  or  in  the  extracts,  it  is  submitted  that  there 
is  not  the  smallest  ground  for  the  assertion  that  the  respond- 
ent holds  that  there  is  any  other  perfect  rule  of  faith  and 
practice  than  the  Bible,  or  that  the  Bible  is  not  such'  a  rule. 
It  is  absolutely  without  foundation  to  state,  as  the  signers  of 
the  charges  do,  that  the  extracts  cited  show  that  the  respond- 
ent holds  that  the  Bible  "  is  fallible  and  untrustworthy, 
even  in  some  of  its  religious  teachings."  The  words  "  fallible 
and  untrustworthy  "  certainly  are  not  used  by  the  respondent. 
Where  are  their  equivalents  ?  The  only  imperfection  in  the 
Sacred  Writings  stated  by  the  respondent,  is  "lack  of  ideal 
symmetry."  Whatever  imperfection  there  may  be  short  of 
absolute  perfection  is  stated  to  have  no  "living  interest." 
The  writers  of  the  Books  of  the  New  Testament  are  stated 
to  have  been  chosen  by  Christ  Himself  to  reveal  Him.  It  is 
also  stated  that  their  spiritual  sympathy  would  prevent  them 
from  attributing  to  Him  any  teaching  or  deed  not  worthy  of 
His  character.  All  of  this  and  more  is  utterly  inconsistent 
with  the  charges  and  cannot,  by  any  proper  reasoning,  be 
made  to  support  them. 

Second  Specification.  —  The  second  specification  is  that  the 
respondent  holds  that  Christ  was  not,  during  his  earthly  life, 
"  G-od  and  man.'''' 

It  is  absolutely  certain  that  nowhere  in  "  Progressive  Or- 
thodoxy "  does  he  say  so.  In  many  places  he  says  directly 
the  opposite.  Thus  on  page  22,  "  Progressive  Orthodoxy," 
he  says  :  "  The  uniqueness  of  Christ's  humanity  appears  in 
this,  that  its  eiitire  existence  is  in  personal  union  with  the 
divine  nature.^^  "  The  divine  and  human  relations  in  Christ 
are  essentially  (i.e..,  in  their  essence)  related  to  each  other." 
P.  28.  The  signers  seek  to  infer  his  heresy,  in  this  direction, 
from  some  two  or  three  passages  cited^  none  of  which  sus- 
tain their  allegations.  The  most  that  can  be  made  of  these 
is,  not  that  they  do  not  assert  both  the  divinity  and 
humanity  of  Jesus,  but  that  they  uphold  a  groivth  in  his 
humanity,  and  its  progressive  union  with  the  divine.  That  is 
a  totally  different  thing  from  asserting  that  there  was  no 
union  at  all.     This  last  is  what  the  signers  claim.     Precisely 


72 

what  the  respondent  affirms  is,  that  "tlie  facts  show  the  lim- 
itations of  Jesus'  knowledge,  the  perfect  human  reality  of 
his  earthly  life,  the  veritable  growth  of  his  consciousness 
and  personality  from  the  moment  of  the  incarnation."'  Do 
the  signers  deny  this  as  to  his  human  nature  ?  "  What, 
then,  becomes  of  the  statement  of  the  Evangelist,  that  Jesus 
increased  in  wisdom  and  in  stature  and  in  favor  with  God 
and  man  ?  The  signers,  in  asserting  "  heterodoxy  "  in  this 
respect,  fly  in  the  face  of  the  Bible,  and  by  their  disbelief 
and  disregard  of  it,  themselves  affirm  that  it  is  not  a  "per- 
fect rule  of  faith  and  practice." 

Third  Specification.  —  This  is  that  the  respondent  holds 
that  no  man  has  power  or  capacity  to  repent  without  knoivl- 
edge  of  God  in  Christ. 

The  passages  cited  under  this  head  do  not  sustain  it. 
There  is  not  one  word  in  any  of  them  concerning  the 
"knowledge"  of  God.  This  is  an  instance  of  what  fre- 
quently occurs  in  the  "  charges,"  viz.,  extreme  carelessness 
or,  rather,  recklessness  in  making  citations.  What  appears 
to  be  affirmed  is,  that  "man  of  himself  cannot  repent." 
Taking  this  brief  assertion  and  without  the  context,  it  is  not 
" heterodox3\"  Witness  chap.  9th,  Paragraph  III.  of  the 
Westminster  Confession  of  Faith.  "  Man  by  his  fall  into  a 
state  of  sin  hath  wholl}^  lost  all  ability  Qpotentiani)  of  will 
to  any  spiritual  good  accompanying  salvation,  so,  as  a  nat- 
ural man,  being  altogether  averse  from  that  good  and  dead 
in  sin,  is  not  able  by  his  own  strength  to  convert  himself,  or  to 
prepare  himself  thereunto"  (3  Schaff,  Creeds,  etc.,  62-3).  It 
does  not  lie  in  the  mouth  of  the  prosecutors  to  deny  the 
Westminster  creed,  as  they  insist  that  the  respondent  is 
bound  by  the  "  Shorter  Catechism,"  made  by  the  same  men. 
The  creed  of  the  Associate  Founders  itself  alleges  that  man 
is  morally  incapable  of  recovering  the  image  of  his  creator, 
though  he  may  have  the  "corporeal  strength"  (whatever 
that  may  be)  to  do  all  that  God  requires  of  him.  The  creed 
further  says,  "  that  previously  to  the  renewing  agency  of 
the  Divine  Spirit,  all  his  moral  actions  are  adverse  to  the 
character  and  glory  of  God."     The  most  that  can  be  said  of 


73 

the  creed  is,  that  it  affirms,  in  an  obscure  way,  the  natural 
ability  of  man  to  repent,  while  it  asserts  his  moral  inability. 
This  view  is  held  by  the  respondent  as  he  himself  affirms, 
and  by  all  rules  of  law  he  is  entitled  to  show  his  intent  in 
such  a  case  as  the  present,  where  the  sole  inquiry  is,  What 
did  the  respondent  mean  by  certain  passages  of  his  writings? 
He  positively  says  that  he  recognizes  and  affirms  the  theo- 
logical distinction  between  natural  and  moral  ability  to 
repent.  Accordingly,  from  every  point  of  view,  this  charge 
is  without  significance. 

Fourth  Specification.  —  This  is  that  mankind,  save  as  they 
have  received  a  knowledge  of  the  ''  liistoric  Christ,"  are  not 
sinners,  or  if  they  are,  not  of  such  sinfulness  as  to  be  in 
danger  of  being  lost. 

The  citations  under  this  specification  lend  no  support  to  it. 
The  very  first  sentence  quoted  alleges  "that  man  left  to  him- 
self cannot  have  a  repentance  which  sets  him  free  from  sin 
and  death."  The  word  "  death,"  as  here  used  by  the 
respondent,  cannot  mean  death  in  a  physical  sense,  but  must 
necessarily  refer  to  death  in  the  sense  of  being  lost.  The 
extract  is  to  the  effect  that  repentance  without  Christ  is 
unavailing  for  the  redemption  of  man.  This  passage, 
instead  of  showing  that  men  without  a  knoivledge  of  Christ 
are  not  "  sinners,"  shows  the  despairing  condition  that  they 
are  in  through  sin  without  Christ. 

Fifth  Specification.  —  This  is,  that  no  man  can  be  lost  with- 
out having  had  knowledge  of  Christ. 

To  establish  this  specification,  a  single  sentence  is  taken 
from  "  Progressive  Orthodoxy,"  p.  250 :  "  We  have  been 
endeavoring  to  show  that  no  one  can  be  lost  without  having 
had  knowledge  of  Christ."  The  meaning  here  is  finally  lost 
at  the  last  judgment.  This  remark  is  merely  an  inference 
from  a  course  of  reasoning  based  on  the  revelation  in  the 
scriptures  of  Christ  to  mankind.  It  is  not  an  assertion  of  a 
fact,  as  the  specification  would  lead  one  to  believe.  It  is 
really  an  inference  from  the  universality  of  the  atonement  as 
set  forth  in  the  creed  itself.  If  incorrect,  it  is  but  a  failure 
in  a  process  of  reasoning.  I  shall,  however,  insist  that  it  is 
correct  more  at  large  hereafter. 


74 

Sjjecifications  from  Sixth  to  Tenth. — I  have  carefully  con- 
sidered the  charges  from  the  sixth  to  the  tenth,  both  inclu- 
sive. The}^  appear  to  me  to  be  either  unsustained  by  the 
citations  given  or  to  be  frivolous.  The  eighth  and  tenth  par- 
ticularly seem  to  be  frivolous.  The  tenth  is  not  supported 
by  any  citation.  I  leave  them  for  the  consideration  of  the 
respondent  and  others,  if  they  are  deemed  to  be  worthy  of 
attention. 

Specification  Eleventh.  —  The  eleventh  specification  de- 
mands more  consideration. 

This  is,  that  the  respondent  holds,  maintains,  and  incul- 
cates that  there  is,  and  will  be,  probation  after  death  for  all 
men  who  do  not  decisively  reject  Christ  during  the  earthly 
life ;  and  that  this  should  be  emphasized,  made  influential, 
and  even  central  in  systematic  theology. 

This  is  a  charge  which,  in  some  form  or  other,  has  not  only 
been  brought  before  your  honorable  Board,  but  also  before 
the  community,  at  various  times  and  places,  within  the  last 
few  months,  and  has  been  hitherto  designated  as  the  special 
heresy  of  the  Andover  Professors.  The  other  charges  appear 
to  be  in  the  nature  of  an  after-thought.  They  are  rather 
raised  as  dust  to  conceal  a  retreat  upon  this  eleventh  or  main 
specification. 

I  shall  consider  this  topic  under  the  following  subdivisions : 

First.  —  The  theory  of  competent  theologians  believing 
the  doctrine  of  limited  atonement,  as  to  the  necessity  of 
knowledge  of  Christ  to  a  saving  faith  on  tlie  part  of  the 
elect. 

Second.  —  The  necessary  extension  of  this  doctrine  to  all 
persons,  since  the  theory  of  universal  atonement  has  been 
established. 

Third. —  Historical  reasons  why  the  fact  that  probation 
involved  a  knowledge  of  Christ  on  the  part  of  the  heathen 
was  not  present  to  the  minds  of  creed-builders  and  Chris- 
tians until  recently. 

Fourth.  —  The  reason  why  it  has  been  an  object  of  atten- 
tion within  these  later  years. 

First.  —  While  the  doctrine  of  limited  atonement  prevailed, 


75 

Tcnoivledge  of  Christ  was  deemed  necessary  on  the  part  of  the 
elect  to  a  saving  faith.  * 

The  witness  that  I  shall  summon  upon  this  point  is  Dr. 
Samuel  Willard  (already  referred  to),  in  his  ninety-sixth  ser- 
mon on  the  Westminster  Shorter  Catechism  (p.  437,  para- 
graph 1,  subdiv.  (2)).  There  he  says:  '•'■Faith  in  Christ 
must  he  built  upon  the  knoivledge  of  him.  [The  italics  are 
his  own.]  If  ever  a  sinner  be  persuaded  to  venture  himself 
upon  Christ  for  life,  it  must  be  upon  a  discovery  that  is  made 
to  and  in  him  that  Christ  is  such  an  object  as  is  every  way 
fit  for  him  so  to  do.  The  act  of  the  will  cannot  be  called  a 
human  act  any  further  than  as  it  follows  the  dictates  and 
direction  of  the  understanding.  Faith,  indeed,  is  a  con- 
fidence, but  it  is  ever  built  upon  knowledge  ;  so  that  till 
there  be  a  discovery  made  of  Christ  to  the  man,  by  which 
he  apprehends  him  to  be  able  to  save  him  to  the  uttermost, 
he  will  not  cast  himself  upon  him  for  eternity."  He  then 
goes  on  to  state  "that  this  knowledge  must  be  by  revelation  ; 
that  God  hath  chosen  the  Gospel  to  be  the  instrument  in 
and  by  which  this  revelation  was  made;  and  that  God  sends 
the  Gospel  to  men  by  men  whom  he  employ's  for  that  end  ; 
and  that  their  errand  is  to  publish  the  glad  tidings  of  peace, 
and  invite  men  to  accept  it.  Their  commission  is  to  all  that 
come  within  their  hearing,  without  restriction  ;  and  they  are 
not  to  meddle  with  the  secret  purposes  of  God,  as  to  whom 
he  has  elected  to  everlasting  life." 

He  displays  in  this  connection  his  belief  in  a  "limited 
atonement,"  by  stating  that  God  brings  not  the  Gospel  ordi- 
narily to  any  people  but  where  there  are  some  to  be  effect- 
ually called  by  it.  "  It  cannot  be  instanced  where  the  Gospel 
offer  ever  was  made  to  men  merely  for  condemnation.  God 
knows  who  are  his  according  to  the  purpose  of  his  grace 
before  they  are  so  called,  where  they  live,  and  accordingly 
orders  the  Gospel  to  come  to  them  or  tliem  to  come  to  it " 
(p.  437). 

He  recurs  to  the  same  point  on  p.  439:  "That  men  may 
comply  with  this  way  as  reasonable  creatures,  the  terms  of  it 
must  be  opened  to  them.     An  human  choice,  though  it  be  an 


76 

act  of  the  will,  yet  to  render  it  human  it  must  be  guided  by 
the  practical  understanding  ;  nor  can  it  otherwise  be  denom- 
inated an  election.  That,  therefore,  men  may  be  capable  of 
making  snch  a  choice  they  must  be  acquainted  with  it,  that 
so  they  may  have  the  knowledge  of  that  about  which  it  is  to 
be  made  (Psalms  ix.  10).  The  man  must  apprehend  the 
thing  to  be  good,  in  order  to  his  closing  with  it ;  whereas 
that  which  he  knows  nothing  of  he  can  neither  determine  to 
be  good  or  evil,  and  so  cannot  exert  an  act  of  his  will 
about  it." 

Though  this  good  Doctor  believed  in  a  limited  atonement,  it 
was  plainly  a  great  trial  to  his  faith.  He  argued  that  there 
was  virtue  enough  in  the  atonement  to  prove  a  satisfaction 
for  all  as  well  as  for  a  few;  that  the  justice  of  God  would  not 
have  suffered  any  injury  by  the  delivery  of  all ;  and  that  the 
mercy  of  God  would  have  had  so  many  the  more  everlasting 
monuments,  for  all  were  alike  involved  in  guilt  and  exposed 
to  his  wrath.  If  any  caviller  then  asked  him  why  so  few,  his 
simple  and  invariable  answer  was,  "  it  was  His  good  pleasure 
so  to  do." 

That  is  Calvinism  in  its  logical  development.  Who  will 
say  it  is  not  dreary  to  the  last  degree  ?  Limited  atonement ; 
knowledge  (for  the  elect)  of  Christ ;  no  knowledge  of  Christ 
for  the  non-elect.  "  Die,  ye  accursed,  die  in  your  sins  ;  ye 
shall  not  know,  for  ye  cannot  believe  and  knowledge  would 
be  useless."     Such  is  the  word  for  the  non-elect. 

Here,  in  December,  1G97,  not  long  after  the  publication  of 
the  Shorter  Catechism,  we  find  a  distinguished  divine  lec- 
turing upon  it,  and  maintaining  that  there  could  be  no  elect 
except  they  had  knowledge  of  Christ,  and  asserting  that 
election  implied  knowledge  of  him.  His  great  celebrity  and 
the  wide  acceptance  of  his  views  without  objection  indicate 
that  he  truly  represented  the  contemporary  opinion  of  the 
New  England  churches.  His  view  as  to  the  necessity  of 
knowledge  of  Christ  to  a  saving  faith  is  eminently  reasonable, 
and  accords  with  logic  and  good-sense. 

There  is,  in  my  opinion,  nothing  more  saddening  than  to 
consider  the  condition  of  these  God-fearino^  men  of  New  Ens:- 


77 

land  when  they  embraced,  with  all  sincerity  of  faith,  the 
doctrine  of  limited  atonement.  It  cut  rioht  through  the 
heart  of  society.  It  laid  bare  its  most  sensitive  and  quivering 
nerves.  It  entered  into  the  family  and  divided  brother  from 
brother  ;  yea,  infant  from  infant.  The  horrible  phrase  "elect 
infants  "  appears  in  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith. 
The  religion  of  Christ  as  then  understood  had  in  it  all  the 
elements  of  civil  war,  for  it  desolated  the  hearth-stone  in 
nearly  every  household.  It  was  a  brave  thing  for  the  men 
who  sustained  dreadful  mental  sufferings  from  it  to  say,  with 
cheerfulness,  "it  is  His  good  pleasure."  Still  they  insisted 
that  there  was  no  true  faith,  nay,  no  election,  no  elect,  with- 
out knowledge.  The  only  difference  between  the  affirmation 
of  these  strict  Calvinists  and  the  alleged  heterodoxy  of  this 
respondent  is,  that  while  they  affirm  that  there  can  be  no 
"  elect"  without  knowledge  of  Christ,  he  inferentially  affirms 
that  no  one  can  be  finally  lost  without  having  had  knowledge 
of  Christ,  and  this  because  the  atonement  is  universal.  These 
are  but  different  roads  to  the  same  result,  viz.,  the  necessity 
of  the  knowledge  of  Christ  to  a  saving  faith.  The  only  dif- 
ference is  in  the  number  who  will  have  knowledge  of  Christ. 

Second.  The  necessary  extension  of  this  doctriyie  to  all  per- 
sons, since  the  theory  of  universal  atonement  has  been  estab- 
lished. 

If,  now,  we  reject  the  doctrine  of  limited  atonement  and 
substitute  for  it  an  universal  atonement,  as  does  the  creed  of 
the  associate  founders,  the  same  argument  remains  and  is 
still  irresistible.  If  Christ  died  for  the  few,  then  faith  is 
brought  into  being  in  them  only  in  connection  with  knowl- 
edge ;  if  he  died  for  all,  faith  is  required  of  all  to  make  it 
available  to  the  extent  that  Christ  designed.  And  this,  as 
has  been  seen,  implies  knowledge  of  Christ  on  the  part  of  all. 
If  any  cannot  receive  the  knowledge,  the  design  of  Christ  is 
to  that  extent  fruitless.  While  probation  after  death  to 
those  who  have  no  opportunity  here  cannot  be  strictly  proved, 
it  is  rendered  probable  from  the  fact  that  it  cannot  be  sup- 
posed that  Christ  would  see  His  great  plan  frustrated  by  lack 
of  suitable  opportunity,  even  on  the  part  of   a  single    soul. 


78 

He  intrusts  it  to  His  believing  children  to  bring  the  knowl- 
edge home  to  every  creature.  But  what  if  they  do  not? 
Because  they  are  remiss,  shall  Christ's  plan  be  frustrated  ? 
Nay,  verily.  To  borrow  the  nervous  language  of  the  elder 
Edwards  in  a  somewhat  different  connection  :  "  This  would 
be  to  frustrate  all  those  great  things  which  God  brought  to 
pass  from  the  fall  of  man  to  the  incarnation  of  Christ.  It 
would  also  frustrate  all  that  Christ  did  and  suffered  while  on 
earth ;  yea,  it  would  frustrate  the  incarnation  itself."  He 
adds,  "  All  the  great  things  done  were  for  that  end  that  those 
might  be  saved  who  should  come  to  Christ"  (History  of  Re- 
demption, Period  H.,  Part  HI.,  Sec.  II.).  But  we  ask,  in  all 
sincerity,  how  shall  they  come  to  Christ  unless  tliey  know? 
The  fact  is,  that  the  proposition  inserted  in  this  creed  that 
Christ  made  atonement  for  the  sins  of  all  men,  cuts  deeper 
than  the  founders  knew.  They,  for  a  special  reason,  estab- 
lished a  creed  mainly  remarkable  for  its  glaring  inconsist- 
encies. Into  a  vessel,  part  of  iron  and  part  of  miry  clay,  they 
cast  a  precious  seed,  perhaps  without  thinking  of  its  mighty 
possibilities.  Now,  it  has  grown  to  be  a  huge  and  symmet- 
rical tree,  demanding  the  earth  for  its  roots  and  heaven  for 
its  branches.  The  great  postulates  of  religion  will  forever 
remain  :  Universal  sin,  universal  atonement,  and  universal 
opportunity  for  rational  faith.  When  "  Heaven  opened  wide 
the  gate  of  its  high  palace  hall "  it  also  opened  wide  the  gate 
of  knowledge  of  Him  who,  standing  at  the  very  opening  of 
the  gate,  announced  His  universal  offer  of  pardon.  As  to  . 
suitable  opportunity  to  know  Him,  the  Head  of  the  Church 
will  provide,  if  not  by  probation  after  death,  in  some  appro- 
priate way.  We  may  be  certain,  and  be  joyful  in  the  assur- 
ance, that  He  will  not  allow  "  the  design  of  His  incarnation 
to  be  frustrated." 

Third.  I  now  propose  to  consider  the  historical  reasons  why 
the  case  of  the  heathen  and  their  knowledge  of  Christ  was  not 
present  to  the  minds  of  Christians  until  a  comparatively  recent 
period,  a7id  hoiv  it  happened  that  our  creeds  are  comparatively 
barren  upon  this  subject. 

In  reading  the  various  creeds  that  have  been  adopted  by 


79 

the  Christian  Church,  one  is  struck  with  the  paucity  of  ref- 
erences to  the  case  of  the  heathen.  The  great  majority  of 
the  human  race  is  entirely  ignored.  This  is  perhaps  partly 
attributable  to  a  contempt  for  barbarians  derived  by  succes- 
sion from  the  Roman  Empire ;  in  part  to  the  terror  and 
detestation  inspired  by  the  life  and  death  struggles,  long- 
continued,  and  with  almost  balanced  fortune,  between  Chris- 
tendom and  the  Turks  ;  partly  to  intestine  struggles  in  each 
Christian  nation  of  a  most  threatening  and  perilous  nature. 
Religious  belief  could  find  no  place  for  them  in  the  other 
world.  This  is  shown  in  quite  a  remarkable  manner  in  the 
Westminster  Confession  of  Faith  (not  the  Shorter  Cate- 
chism). 

In  Chapter  32  (Confession)  it  is  laid  down  that  the 
"  Bodies  of  men,  after  death  return  to  dust  and  see  corrup- 
tion, but  their  souls,  which  neither  die  nor  sleep,  having  an 
immortal  subsistence,  immediately  return  to  God  who  gave 
them.  The  souls  of  the  righteous,  being  then  made  perfect 
in  holiness,  are  received  into  the  highest  heavens  where  they 
behold  the  face  of  God  in  light  and  glory,  waiting  for  the 
full  redemption  of  their  bodies,  and  the  souls  of  the  wicked 
are  cast  into  Hell,  where  they  remain  in  torments  and  utter 
darkness,  reserved  to  the  judgment  of  the  great  day. 
Besides  these  tivo  places  for  souls  separated  from  their  bodies^ 
the  Scripture  acknowledgeth  noney 

So  to  escape  this  last  named  difficulty,  the  souls  of  the 
wicked  must  be  condemned  to  Hell  before  the  judgment,  and 
those  of  infants  (other  than  "elect  infants,"  described  in 
Chapter  10)  must  be  sent  there  also,  because  the  Scripture 
only  acknowledged  two  places  for  souls  after  death.  Not  a 
word  of  this  destination  as  to  the  souls  of  the  wicked  after 
death  is  to  be  found  in  the  Shorter  Catechism,  while  that  of 
the  righteous  is  made  substantially  equivalent  to  the  state- 
ment in  the  Confession  of  Faith.  This  is  a  significant  omis- 
sion, apparently  showing  that  the  view  taken  in  the 
"  Confession  "  was  not  firmly  held,  or  that  it  was  considered 
not  to  be  a  fit  doctrine  to  be  presented  in  a  popular  form, 
and  especially  among  the  young. 


80 

The  general  question  still  remains  as  to  the  principal  rea- 
son wh}^  no  general  interest  has  been  taken  in  the  Church, 
until  the  present  century,  in  the  fate  of  the  heathen  after 
death,  or,  stated  in  a  broader  form,  in  the  fate  of  the  heathen 
in  any  respect. 

One  leading  ground  undoubtedly  was  that  there  was 
assumed  to  be  perpetual  enmity  between  Christians  and 
heathen.  I  may  refer  to  a  great  legal  decision  in  the  time  of 
King  James  I.,  but  a  few  years  before  the  Westminster  Cate- 
chism was  composed,  viz.,  Calvin's  case,  argued  before  the 
Lord  Chancellor  Ellesmere  and  the  twelve  judges  of 
England.  Lord  Coke,  the  reporter  of  it,  says  that  it  was  the 
weightiest  case  that  ever  was  argued  in  any  court.  It  had 
points  in  it  of  the  highest  general  interest,  and,  among 
others,  the  relations  according  to  the  law  of  nature  of  Eng- 
lishmen to  aliens  were  discussed.  The  general  sentiment 
was,  according  to  Coke,  that  Christian  kings  and  princes 
were,  though  aliens,  friends  of  England,  unless  in  time  of 
war,  while  there  was  a  perpetual,  everlasting  enmity  between 
Englishmen  and  infidels,  that  is,  heathen.  Let  us  listen  to 
the  words  of  the  report :  "  All  infidels  aie  in  law  perpetual 
enemies  (for  the  law  presumes  not  that  they  will  be  converted, 
that  being  a  remote  possibility^,  for  between  them,  as  with  the 
Devil  whose  subjects  they  be,  and  the  Christian  there  is  per- 
petual hostility,  and  can  be  no  peace,  lor,  as  the  Apostle  saith, 
'  What  concord  can  there  be  between  Christ  and  Belial  ?  '  " 
(7  Coke  R.  p.  17,  b.)  Further  on,  he  says,  "The  laws  of 
the  infidel  are  not  only  against  Christianity,  but  against  the 
law  of  God  and  of  nature,"  contained  in  the  Decalogue.  It 
must  be  remembered  that  the  men  who  uttered  this,  as  it 
now  seems  to  us,  atrocious  sentiment,  this  bloody  proclama- 
tion of  everlasting  war,  were  professed  Christians,  and  men 
of  the  first  rank  for  ability  and  statesmanship.  The  West- 
minster Assembly  sat  only  thirty  years  later  than  this  utter- 
ance of  the  twelve  judges  in  Calvin's  case,  having  among  its 
members  noblemen,  statesmen,  and  great  lawj^ers,  among 
others  John  Selden.  It  is  not  conceivable  that  this  view 
was  not  present  to  their  minds,  making  the  condition  of  the 


81 

heathen,  whether  before  or  after  death,  of  no  possible  conse- 
quence to  Englishmen.  Their  conversion  was  too  remote  a 
possibility  to  be  entertained. 

Here  was  a  sentiment,  if  it  "did  not  cut  the  nerve  of  mis- 
sions," prevented  any  such  nerve  from  developing.  Why- 
was  the  conversion  of  the  heathen  "a  remote  possibility,"  in 
the  language  of  Lord  Coke,  or  a  "possibility  upon  a  possi- 
bility," in  other  forms  of  statement  ?  This  was  undoubtedly 
derived  from  some  form  of  the  doctrine  of  limited  atonement. 
It  was  scarcely  conceivable  that  Christ  would  elect  such  chil- 
dren of  Belial  to  be  his  adopted  sons,  and  pass  by  men  in  a 
Christian  land  who  had  the  means  of  grace  offered  them.  All 
the  encouragement  that  could  be  given  to  one  living  in  a 
Christian  land,  was  that  he  might,  if  he  used  such  means  of 
grace  as  were  open  to  him,  be  elected,  or  God  in  his  good 
pleasure  might,  after  all,  "pass  him  by."  What,  then,  were 
the  chances  for  election  of  the  poor  heathen,  ranked  among 
the  devil's  servants  ?  Was  not  Lord  Coke  correct  in  calling 
it  a  remote  possibility  —  not  worth  taking  into  account?  — 
was  he  not  right,  on  that  theory,  of  proclaiming  against  them, 
as  the  mouthpiece  of  the  justice  of  England,  eternal  war? 

As  late  as  1744,  the  view  taken  in  Lord  Coke's  time  was 
still  under  discussion,  and  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas,  speak- 
ing by  Lord  Chief  Justice  Welles,  took  much  pains  to  refute 
the  doctrines  advanced  in  Calvin's  case,  so  far  as  the  right  of 
a  Gentoo  to  be  a  witness  in  an  English  court,  was  concerned. 
Omichund  v.  Barker,  Welles  E,.,  538.  Even  down  to  the 
time  of  Lord  Mansfield,  near  the  close  of  the  last  century, 
African  slavery  was  justified  in  England  by  many  on  the 
ground  that  the  negroes  were  not  Christians,  but  infidels,  of 
course,  arguing  by  implication  that  infidels  had  no  rights  as 
against  Christians.  It  had  become  a  current  notion  that  if 
a  negro  became  a  Christian  he  was  emancipated,  though  Lord 
Mansfield  himself  tells  us  that  there  was  no  ground  for  this 
in  law,  and  that  it  was  so  resolved  "  upon  a  petition  in  Lin- 
coln Inns  Hall  after  dinner.'^  Being  rendered  in  that  way, 
little  attention  was  paid  to  the  decision,  and  the  question 
was  not  really  disposed  of  until  /Somerset's  case  (cited  below). 


82 

He  adds  that  it  is  remarkable  that  before  this  decision  the 
English  "took  infinite  pains"  to  prevent  their  slaves  being 
made  Christians,  so  that  they  might  not  be  freed.  Somerset 
V.  Stewart,  Lofft's  Reports  (fol.  ed.),  London,  p.  8  (a.d. 
1763). 

Lord  Mansfield  had  moral  courage  enough  to  dispel  this 
delusion,  although  there  were  fourteen  or  fifteen  thousand 
slaves  in  England,  held  there  on  that  basis.  .  He  rendered  his 
decision  with  a  fine,  tragic  air,  crying  out,  "  Let  justice  come, 
though  the  heavens  fall."  It  came,  and  the  heavens  did  not 
fall.  His  decision  did  not  merely  emancipate  the  slave  It 
had  a  far  wider  sweep.  It  emancipated  the  Christian  from 
his  bondage  to  the  accursed  theory  that  the  heathen  had  no 
rights,  legal  or  moral,  that  could  be  urged  against  the  brute 
force  of  the  Christian.  Lord  Mansfield  was  in  a  mild  way 
the  precursor  of  Abraham  Lincoln.  Each  professed  to  pro- 
ceed according  to  law.  The  one  gave  the  death-blow  to  the 
slavery  of  Afiican  heathen  in  England ;  the  other  destroj-ed 
the  servitude  of  African  Christians  in  the  United  States. 

Now,  can  any  one  seriously  contend  that  while  this  state 
of  things  continued  there  could  have  been  any  earnest  mis- 
sionary spirit  in  the  way  of  converting  the  heathen?  Most 
assuredly  not. 

Jonathan  Edwards,  writing  his  History  of  Redemption,  not 
far  from  this  period,  earnestly  favoring  missions,  could  but 
give  the  most  meagre  accounts  of  them.  There  was  some 
interest  concerning  the  Indians  in  North  America ;  some- 
thing doing  in  far-off  Muscovy  ;  something  among  the  heathen 
in  the  East  Indies,  particularly  in  Malabar.  This  was  a  most 
meagre  exhibit.  He  was  looking  forward  to  the  future,  to 
the  time  when  "  Antichrist "  was  overthrown,  and  the  hea- 
then were  emancipated  "  from  the  cruel  tyranny  of  the  devil, 
who  has  all  this  while  blinded  and  befooled  them,  domineered 
over  them,  and  made  a  prey  of  them."  He  burst  forth  into 
a  rhapsody :  "  Then  shall  the  many  natives  of  Africa,  who 
now  seem  to  be  in  a  state  but  a  little  above  the  beasts,  be 
visited  with  glorious  light,  and  delivered  from  all  their  dark- 
ness, and  become  a  civil,  Christian,  understanding,  and  holy 


83 

people  ;  then  shall  the  vast  continent  of  America,  which  now 
in  great  part  is  covered  with  barbarous  ignorance  and  cruelty, 
be  everywhere  covered  with  glorious  Gospel  light  and  Chris- 
tian love,  and  instead  of  worshipping  the  devil,  as  they  now 
do,  they  shall  serve  God.  So  we  may  expect  it  will  be  in  that 
great  and  populous  part  of  the  East  Indies  which  are  now 
mostly  inhabited  by  the  worshippers  of  the  devil.  .  .  .  Thus 
will  be  gloriously  fulfilled  Isaiah  xxxv.  1 :  '  The  wilderness 
and  the  solitary  place  shall  be  glad  for  them,  and  the  desert 
rejoice  and  blossom  as  the  rose.'  " 

But  if  he  had  disclosed  his  whole  feelingr  he  would  have 
said  :  "  This  shall  be  hereafter^  but  alas !  not  now,  not  now. 
Christ  is  in  conflict  with  Antichrist,  and  when  in  that  con- 
flict he  is  crowned  victor  all  this  will  come.  Till  then  we 
must  w^ait."  It  was  like  two  opposing  sovereigns  disputing 
every  inch  of  territory,  with  varying  successes,  except  that 
prophecy  gave  the  assurance  as  to  which  would  be  ulti- 
mately successful.  It  was  this  feeling  and  the  cognate  feel- 
ing, that  the  heathen  were  not  likely  to  be  God's  elect,  that 
strangled  the  missionary  spirit  in  its  birth.  It  is  easy  to 
understand  why  at  the  close  of  the  last  century  only  seven 
missionary  (Protestant)  societies  were  in  existence,  and  four 
of  these  in  the  tenth  decade. 

It  was  precisely  as  the  strict  Calvinistic  doctrine  began  to 
lose  its  hold  upon  the  consciences  of  men,  and  the  glorious 
truth  of  an  universal  atonement  not  merely  dawned  upon 
their  minds  and  hearts,  but  shone  upon  them  and  irradiated 
them  with  its  full  effulgence,  that  this  other  great  truth  pos- 
sessed and  animated  them,  that  the  heathen  were  not,  in  fact, 
the  children  of  the  devil,  but  rather  the  children  of  a  com- 
mon father  and  their  own  brethren,  for  whose  destiny  they 
should  feel  the  most  tender  and  affectionate  solicitude. 

Fourth.  —  It  is  time  now  to  inquire  why  the  missionary 
spirit  has  been  so  ardent  and  continuous  since  the  beginning 
of  the  present  century. 

This  is  no  doubt  attributable  to  a  variety  of  causes,  includ- 
ing the  extension  of  commerce,  the  increase  of  facilities  for 
travel,  increased  wealth,  and  the  prevalence  among  civilized 


84 

men  of  the  tenderer  and  more  feminine  qualities,  such  as  are 
evinced  in  the  establishment  and  large  development  of  socie- 
ties for  the  prevention  of  cruelty  to  animals  or  cruelty  to 
children.  This  tender  sentiment  has  extended  to  their  far- 
away and  dusky  brethren,  and  stimulates  them  to  reach  for- 
ward and  lend  a  helping  hand  for  their  civilization,  and  for 
the  removal  of  the  dreadful  evils  which  blight  and  consume 
their  lives.  More  than  all  is  it  to  be  attributed  to  the  new 
and  noble  feeling  that  Christ  died  for  them  as  well  as  for 
civilized  men.  To  the  enlightened  modern  Christian,  Satan 
has  no  pretence  to  share  the  honors  of  sovereignty  with 
Christ.  His  reign  ended  when  Christ  died.  The  offer  of 
pardon  is  unlimited  on  reasonable  terms.  There  is  nothing 
left  but  to  proclaim  it  with  all  zeal  and  discretion.  If  there 
are  any  sinners  that  cannot  be  reached  during  life,  let  the 
believer  hope,  or  feel  assured  if  he  can,  that  the  offer  will 
still  be  held  out,  and  the  opportunity  to  embrace  it  be 
afforded,  even  though  it  be  styled  probation  after  death. 
This  respondent  presents  this  probation  simply  as  a  proba- 
bility, a  hope.  We  insist,  therefore,  that  on  general  grounds, 
as  well  as  on  this  guarded  commitment  to  the  doctrine,  there 
is  no  "  heterodoxy  "  (Progressive  Orthodoxy,  248-254,  and 
the  article  considered  as  a  whole). 

Specification  Tivelftli.  —  The  next  specification  is,  that  the 
respondent  holds,  maintains,  and  inculcates  "  that  Christian 
missions  are  not  to  be  supported  and  conducted  on  the  ground 
that  men  who  know  not  Christ  are  in  danger  of  perishing 
forever,  and  must  perish  forever,  unless  saved  in  this  life." 

The  respondent  claims  that  this  subject  is  not  embraced 
within  this  creed,  and  is  not  therefore  within  the  scope  of 
the  present  inquiry  ;  still,  he  admits  that  he  does  not  hold 
that  the  ground  for  supporting  and  conducting  Christian 
missions  is  the  absolute  certainty  that  all  must  perit^h  forever 
who  are  not  saved  in  this  life.  The  discussion  of  this  sub- 
ject has  been  partly  anticipated,  and  it  is  only  proposed  to 
offer  a  few  suggestions  concerning  it. 

Some  will  say  that  even  this  qualified  statement  "cuts 
the  nerve "  of  Christian  missions.     The  principal  objection 


85 

to  it,  I  presume,  is  that  the  tendency  of  the  doctrine  will  be 
to  paralyze  Christian  effort  in  sending  money  to  the  heathen, 
or  to  lessen  interest  in  the  cause.  Such  an  objection  is,  of 
course,  without  avail  if  the  doctrine  of  "  probation  after 
death  "  be  proved  to  be  true.  But  as  it  cannot  positively  be 
proved  to  be  true  (though  we  affirm  that  there  appears  to  be 
ground  for  it  in  Scripture  as  well  as  in  reason),  such  an 
objection  is  to  be  carefully  considered  in  weighing  proba- 
bilities. There  must,  however,  be  taken  into  account,  on  the 
other  hand,  the  duty  of  Christians  to  obey  the  divine  com- 
mand to  preach  the  Gospel  to  all,  the  influence  of  Christian 
love  in  breeding  a  desire  to  extend  to  others  the  blessings  of 
Christianity,  the  impulses  of  a  spirit  of  humanity  in  averting 
cruelty,  and  the  natural  and  earnest  wish  of  all  good  and 
intelligent  men  to  reduce  the  earth  to  a  well-ordered  scheme 
of  civil  and  religious  liberty  instead  of  leaving  it  in  the 
shadow  of  ignorance  and  disorder. 

These  influences  are  potent  enough  to  develop  Home  Mis- 
sions.    Why  not  Foreign  Missions? 

The  real  difficulty  is  that  Christians  are  not  yet  emanci- 
pated from  the  bondage  of  fear.  They  have  not  yet  accepted 
love  as  the  element  which  should  control  their  lives.  And 
yet,  while  fear  was  the  sole  prevailing  impulse  there  were  no 
missions  of  consequence.  It  was  only  after  love  for  far-away 
brethren  began  to  be  the  controlling  element  in  men's  lives 
that  missions  started  forward  to  their  present  glorious  devel- 
opment. 

A  passage  from  Dr.  Schaff's  History  of  the  Creeds  of 
Christendom  is  singularly  apposite.  No  one  will  suspect  this 
thorough  student  in  ecclesiastical  history  of  any  thing  like 
partiality  or  bias.  He,  from  the  nature  of  his  work,  must 
sum  up  conclusions  as  a  judge.  After  surveying  the  view  of 
the  church  as  to  the  salvation  of  the  heathen,  he  says :  "  Dur- 
ing the  period  of  vigorous  scholastic  orthodoxy  which  fol- 
lowed the  Reformation  in  the  Reformed  and  Lutheran 
Churches  Zwingli's  view  "  (favorable  to  the  heathen)  "  could 
not  be  appreciated,  and  appeared  as  a  dangerous  heresy.  In 
the  seventeenth  century  the  Romanists  excluded  the  Protes- 


86 

tants,  the  Lutlierans  the  Calvinists,  the  Calvinists  the  Ar- 
minians,  from  the  kingdom  of  heaven  ;  how  much  more  all 
those  who  never  heard  of  Christ?  This  wholesale  damnation 
of  the  vast  majority  of  the  human  race  should  have  stirred  up 
a  burning  zeal  for  their  conversion  ;  and  yet  during  that  whole 
period  of  intense  confessionalisra  and  exclusive  orthodoxism 
there  was  not  a  single  Protestant  missionary  in  the  field,  ex- 
cept among  tlie  Indians  in  the  wilderness  of  North  Amer- 
ica "    (Schaff's  Creeds  of   Christendom,  vol.  i.,  p.  384,  4th 

ed.). 

Who  were  the  missionaries  to  the  Indians  in  North  Amer- 
ica referred  to  by  Dr.  Schaff  ?  John  Eliot  and  David  Brain- 
erd,  Congregationalist  ministers,  inspired  with  the  spirit  of 
John  Robinson.  We  know  from  Mr.  Brainerd's  own  writings 
what  measures  he  pursued.  In  teaching  the  Indians  doc- 
trines that  had  a  legal  aspect,  such  as  "justification  by  im- 
puted righteousness,"  he  made  but  very  little  headway.  In 
his  own  words,  "I  found  it  extremely  difficult  to  treat  with 
them  upon  this  great  doctrine  "  (Brainerd's  Journal,  Appen- 
dix II.,  Sec.  4).  Where  he  succeeded  was,  first,  in  teaching 
them  the  sinfulness  and  misery  of  the  estate  they  were  nat- 
urally in  ;  and,  secondly,  in  frequentl}'  opening  to  them,  in 
his  own  words,  with  his  own  italics,  "  the  fulness,  all-sufficiency 
and  freeness,  of  that  redemption  which  the  Son  of  God  has 
wrought  out  by  his  obedience  and  sufferings  for  perishing 
sinners  ;  how  this  provision  he  had  made  was  suited  to  all 
their  wants,  and  liow  he  called  and  invited  them  to  accept  of 
everlasting  life  freely,  notwithstanding  all  their  sinfulness, 
inability,  unworthiness,  etc."  (Journal,  Appendix  III.  short 
account  of  Missions). 

Did  Brainerd  preach  "  orthodox  and  consistent  Calvinism  " 
to  these  poor  Indians?  Wouldn't  he  have  found  the  among 
of  limited  atonement  extremely  difficult?  It  may  be  unhes- 
itatingly affirmed  that  while  truly  "consistent  Calvinism" 
was  the  general  doctrine  of  the  Church  not  one  missionary 
was  sent  to  the  heathen,  nor  was  that  doctrine  ever  preached 
to  them. 

There   is  another  thing   which    the    friends   of    Missions 


87 

must  take  into  serious  consideration.  What  will  be  the 
probable  effect  upon  the  loyalty  to  Christianit}^  of  many  rea- 
sonable men  on  learning  that  the  doctrine  of  "  universal 
atonement,"  to  which  they  now  cheerfull}^  give  the  adhesion 
of  their  hearts  and  lives,  is  in  respect  to  the  vast  majority  of 
the  human  race  substantially  a  mockery  ?  There  are  and  al- 
ways have  been  practical  limitations  upon  the  power  of  Chris- 
tians at  once  to  obey  the  command,  "  Go,  teach  all  nations." 
"We  hope  and  believe  that  these  are  provisional.  In  the 
mean  time  shall  they  suffer  eternal  punishment?  Can  the 
church  afford  to  alienate  men  who  have  a  high  sense  of  jus- 
tice, without  the  clearest  reason  ?  It  is  not  necessary  for  the 
members  of  this  Board  to  hold  the  opinion  concerning  proba- 
tion attributed  to  the  respondent.  All  that  any  can  ask  is 
that  it  shall  be  a  tolerated  opinion  for  those  whom  it  satisfies, 
and  that  they  shall  not  by  reason  of  it  be  adjudged  to  be 
"  heterodox." 

What  we  desire  to  say  upon  this  point  in  more  full  state- 
ment is  this  : 

It  is  possible  to  understand,  on  the  theory  of  a  limited 
atonement,  how  a  great  ruler  of  the  universe  might  extend  a 
pardon  to  some  rebels  against  his  authority  and  positively 
exclude  others.  This  has  been  done  scores  of  times  by 
earthly  monarchs,  not  in  general  arbitraril}^  but  with  some 
shadow  of  reason  —  perhaps  reasons  of  state.  But  to  say 
that  a  Supreme  Being  offers  pardon  to  all  his  subjects  on 
certain  specified  and  equal  terms,  and  then  refrains  from 
communicating  the  terms  to  some,  so  that  they  cannot  ac- 
cept it  if  they  would,  is  incomprehensible  and  abhorrent  to 
the  sense  of  justice  implanted  in  the  breast  of  man  by  that 
very  Supreme  Being.  Communication  is  the  very  first  ele- 
,  ment  of  human  law.  Why  not  of  the  divine?  If  these 
signers  say  otherwise,  I  will  not  believe  them.  Nor  will  I 
believe  that  the  eminent  and  merciful  Christian  men  who 
drew  this  Associate  Creed  would  have  said  otherwise,  had 
their  attention  been  called  to  the  proper  inferences  to  be 
drawn  from  an  Universal  Atonement.  Let  us  rid  our  minds 
of  fallacies.     The   great   Emperor  Justinian  wrote   on   the 


88 

front  of  his  code  of  Roman  law  the  sentence  :  "  Justice  is  the 
unflagging  and  everlasting  purpose  to  render  to  every  one  his 
due."'  With  a  human  judge,  justice  is  rightly  defined  to  he 
a.  purpose,  because  it  may  sometimes  fail  of  accomplishment, 
■while  with  God  it  is  an  assured  result.  No  rebellious  sub- 
ject lias  a  claim  to  a  pardon  ;  but  when  offered,  if  it  is  not 
communicated,  it  is,  we  insist,  a  hollow  mockery  of  justice, 
particularly  in  the  case  of  an  omnipotent  God. 

Some  may  object  that  this  wliole  theory  of  probation  after 
death  is  quite  unnecessarj',  since  the  heathen  have  a  law 
written  in  their  hearts  which  they  ought  to  obey;  and  if 
they  do  not,  they  deserve  everlasting  punishment.  The  dif- 
ficulty with  this  view  is,  that  it  introduces  into  the  divine 
plan  two  different  modes  of  treating  sinners  —  one  b}^  the 
doctrines  of  grace,  and  the  other  by  the  feeble  fluctuating 
light  of  nature's  law.  Let  it  be  said  with  reverence,  that 
this  is  but  a  human  device  or  makeshift  to  help  God  out  in 
an  imperfect  system  of  government.  The  Supreme  Being 
has  but  one  system  of  government.  It  is  reasonable  to 
think  that  his  plan  of  atonement  will  be  made  known  in 
some  way  to  sinners,  be  it  by  "probation  after  death"  or 
in  some  other  way  that  he  may  establish.  It  is  not  for 
us  to  make  a  definite  assertion  as  to  the  mode  of  accomplish- 
ing the  divine  purpose.  We  have  a  right  to  form  and  enter- 
tain a  hope,  or  even  a  belief,  as  to  the  probabilities  of  the 
case. 

Either  side  to  this  controversy,  naturally,  seeks  the  aid  of 
Scripture.  There  is  in  ray  view  nothing  decisive  to  be  found 
there,  still  1  think  that  the  verses  often  cited  from  the  First 
Epistle  of  Peter  iii.  19  and  iv.  6,  are  by  no  means  adverse  to 
the  theory  admitted  by  the  respondent,  but  favor  it  rather 
than  otherwise. 

There  is  plainly  nothing  in  "  the  Associate  Creed"  to  ex- 
clude this  doctrine ;  I  quote  the  words  bearing  on  this  sub- 
ject :  "  The  souls  of  believers  are  at  their  deatli  made  perfect 
in  holiness  and  do  immediately  pass  into  glor}'' ;  that  their 
bodies  being  still  united  to  Christ,  will  at  the  resurrection  be 
raised  up  to  glory,  and  that  the  saints  will  be  made  perfectly 


89 

» 
blessed  in  the  full  enjoyment  of  God  to  all  eternity ;  but 
that  the  wicked  tvill  awake  to  shame  and  everlasting  con- 
tempt, and  with  devils  be  plunged  into  the  lake  that  burnetii 
with  fire  and  brimstone  for  ever  and  ever."  The  position  of 
the  righteous  and  the  wicked  are  here  strongly  contrasted. 
The  souls  of  the  righteous  pass  immediately  to  glory,  and 
only  their  bodies  await  resurrection  ;  the  wicked  apparently 
are  not  to  have  their  destiny  fixed  until  they  awake,  presum- 
ably at  the  time  of  the  general  resurrection.  It  is  very  plain 
that  there  is  nothing  in  this  statement  to  exclude  probation 
after  death.  Moreover,  it  is  not  stated  who  are  "  the 
wicked."  The  word  may  mean  only  those  who,  having  had 
the  offer  of  pardon  made  known  to  them,  have  decisively 
rejected  it.  This  view  is  confirmed  by  the  associated  words 
"  shame  and  everlasting  contempt,"  which  cannot  with  pro- 
priety be  applied  to  those  who  have  not  known  the  oifer  of 
pardon  and  its  terms. 

In  view  of  the  word  "  heterodoxy,"  it  seems  eminently 
proper  to  state  that  the  theory  of  the  respondent  is  in  accord- 
ance with  the  growing  consciousness  of  the  modern  Church, 
or  at  least  is  not  rejected  by  it. 

(1.)  I  respectfully  refer  to  the  American  Congregational 
Creed  of  1883,  and  in  particular  to  Article  VII.  in  the  state- 
ment of  doctrine.  It  is  there  set  forth  that  "  we  believe  in 
the  ultimate  prevalence  of  the  kingdom  of  God  over  all  the 
earth  ;  in  the  glorious  appearing  of  the  great  God  and  our 
Saviour  Jesus  Christ ;  in  the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  and 
in  a  final  judgment,  the  issues  of  which  are  everlasting  pun- 
ishment and  everlasting  life."  (Vol.  iii.,  Schaff's  Creeds, 
p.  915.) 

The  question  of  the  final  destiny  of  mankind  is  thus  left 
open  until  the  final  judgment.  There  is,  of  course,  room  for 
the  doctrine  of  "  probation  after  death,"  between  the  time  of 
death  and  the  day  of  final  judgment. 

The  first  name  attached  to  this  creed  is  that  of  the  honored 
Chairman  of  this  Board ;  the  third  name  is  that  of  one  of  the 
prosecutors  of  this  proceeding.  Is  it  impertinent  to  ask  why 
did  not  Henry  M.  Dexter  close  up  this  doctrine  of  "•  probation 


90 

after  death "  ?  If  he  and  other  representative  men  left  it 
open,  is  it  "heterodoxy"  for  a  member  of  the  Congregational 
Church  to  believe  and  inculcate  it?  Is  it  "heterodoxy  "  to 
write  in  a  magazine  tliat  it  is  within  the  bounds  of  hope? 

(2.)  I  refer  to  Dr.  Schaff  as  allowing  a  ray  of  liope  in  his 
discussion  of  creeds.  After  referring  to  Zwingli's  views  and 
the  revival  of  them  among  evangelical  divines  in  Germany, 
partly  in  connection  with  a  new  theory  of  Hades  and  the 
Middle  State,  he  continues: 

"  This  is  not  the  place  to  discuss  a  point  which,  in  the  ab- 
sence of  clear  scripture  authority,  does  not  admit  of  symbol- 
ical statement.  The  future  fate  of  the  heathen  is  wisely 
involved  in  mystery,  and  it  is  unsafe  and  useless  to  speculate 
without  the  light  of  revelation  about  matters  which  lie  beyond 
the  reach  of  our  observation  and  experience."  Then  he  adds: 
"  But  the  Bible  consigns  no  one  to  final  damnation  except  for 
rejecting  Christ  in  unbeliefs  and  gives  us  at  least  a  ray  of  hope 
by  significant  examples  of  faith,  from  Melchizedek  and  Job 
down  to  the  wise  men  from  the  East,  and  by  a  number  of 
passages  concerning  the  working  of  the  Logos  among  the 
Gentiles"  (citing  the  passages).  He  thus  closes:  "  We  cer- 
tainly have  no  right  to  confine  God's  election  and  saving  grace 
to  the  limits  of  the  Visible  Church.  We  are,  indeed,  bound 
to  his  ordinances,  and  must  submit  to  his  terms  of  salvation ; 
but  God  himself  is  free,  and  can  save  whomsoever  and  iiowso- 
ever  he  pleases,  and  he  is  infinitely  more  anxious  and  ready 
to  save  than  we  can  conceive." 

This  author  does  not  commit  himself  to  precise  methods. 
It  is  plain,  however,  that  he  has  no  controversy  of  "  hetero- 
doxy "  with  those  who  hope  that  the  gospel  plan  of  salvation 
will  be  submitted  in  some  form  or  other  to  the  knowledge 
of  all  mankind. 

(3.)  The  creeds  of  the  Baptist  denomination,  including 
both  the  so-called  Calvinistic  and  Free  Will  branches  of  it, 
admit  of  this  same  view.  The  former  state  that  the  final 
judgment  will  fix  forever  the  final  state  of  man,  in  heaven  or 
hell,  on  principles  of  righteousness  (Schaff,  iii.,  748).  The 
latter  are  still  more  specific,  stating,  in  chapter  21,  that  there 


91 

will  be  a  general  judgment,  when  time  and  mans  probation 
will  close  forever  ^Ibid.,  756). 

It  is  much  that  these  great  denominations  of  Baptists  and 
Congregationalists,  with  similar  lines  of  historical  develop- 
ment, should  have  come  to  a  like  general  conclusion,  that  the 
matter  of  probation  of  the  heathen  cannot  as  yet  be  dogmat- 
icall}'  stated.  It  is  enough,  for  this  respondent  in  the  pres- 
ent inquir}^  if  the  subject  can  still  be  considered  open  for 
discussion  and  reasonable  ground  of  hope. 

In  closing  this  argument,  I  must  express  my  deep  regret 
that  the  prosecutojs  of  this  proceeding  should  have  thought 
it  necessary  to  bring  this  painful  topic  before  your  honorable 
Board  suggesting  it  as  a  matter  of  heterodoxy.  I  do  not 
desire  to  question  their  motives,  but  I  cannot  fail  to  depre- 
cate the  spirit  in  which  they  have  made  unwarranted  charges 
against  the  character  and  deeds  of  five  distinguished  men, 
who  represent  the  worth  and  intelligence  of  the  denomina- 
tion to  which  they  belong,  and  who  have  long  been  success- 
ful instructors  of  youth.  Such  proceedings  shake  the  confi- 
dence of  men  in  the  stability  of  the  Christian  system  of 
truth.  The  charges  turn  out  to  be  of  slight  moment,  and 
not  within  the  true  scope  of  the  trust  imposed  by  the  origi- 
nal founders.  It  is  to  be  earnestly  hoped  that  this  Board, 
acting  in  a  spirit  of  embolic  forbearance  and  true  wisdom, 
will  reach  a  conclusion  at  once  just  to  the  accused,  and  cal- 
culated to  subserve  the  interests  of  the  cause  which  I  assume 
that  we  all  have  greatly  at  heart. 


EVIDENCE    INTRODUCED    BY   PROFESSOR   BALDWIN. 


Professor  Baldwin.     Mr.  Chairman^  and  Gentlemen  of  the 
Board :  — 

We  now  proceed  to  introduce  the  evidence,  both  docu- 
mentary and  oral,  and  both  brief,  in  support  of  the  answer 
of  the  respondent.  Our  evidence  will  be  confined  to  what 
we  deem  the  main  point  to  be  considered  by  the  Board  of 
Visitors;  namely,  whether  Dr.  Smyth  has  in  any  manner 
violated  by  his  publications  the  obligations  he  has  assumed 
to  the  Trustees  of  Phillips  Academy  in  Andover  according 
to  the  Statutes  under  which  the  Seminary  is  constituted. 
We  believe  that  the  Creed  is  a  broad  and  not  a  narrow  one ; 
that  it  is  a  practical  and  not  a  scholastic  one ;  that  it  does 
not  speak  a  mediaeval  theology,  but  a  true  and  progressive 
orthodoxy.  Other  questions  have  been  suggested  to  you  at 
great  length  by  my  learned  associate,  with  all  the  fulness  of 
research  that  characterizes  whatever  comes  from  his  hand ; 
but  the  particular  question  to  which  our  evidence  will  apply 
is  a  narrow  one,  —  simply  whether  our  client  can  take  his 
stand  with  security  and  serenity,  as  we  think  he  can,  upon 
this  ground :  That  he  has  made  a  full  and  unanswerable 
declaration  of  his  acceptance  of  the  Associate  Statutes  and 
Associate  Creed,  in  the  manner  in  which  we  think  they  ought 
to  be  understood  by  every  one  who  reads  them,  who  reads 
their  ?iistory,  who  reads  their  very  words,  or  who  is  cognizant 
of  the  uniform  construction  and  usage  which  has  interpreted 
them  for  nearly  a  hundred  j^ears. 

Our  first  exhibit  will  be  the  record  of  the  proceedings  of 
the  Board  of  Trustees,  already  introduced  by  my  friend 
Professor  Dwight,  on  Dr.  Wellmau's  resolution.  .  .  . 


93 

Exhibit  2  is  a  record  of  the  action  of  the  Board  of  Trus- 
tees on  Sept.  27,  182(5,  and  again  on  April  19,  1842,  both 
together  on  the  same  paper.  This  is  the  record  of  the  meet- 
ings of  the  Trustees,  in  which  action  was  taken  to  determine 
whether  the  associate  professors  were  or  were  not  bound  to 
subscribe  to  the  Westminster  Catechism.  At  the  first  meet- 
ing it  was  held  they  were ;  at  the  second  meeting  it  was  held 
they  were  not.  ... 

Sept.  27,  1826.  i  "  Voted,  That  in  the  opinion  of  this  board  the 
Constitution  of  the  Theological  Seminary,  as  expressed  in  the  original 
and  associate  statutes,  requires  that  the  declaration  made  and  subscribed 
by  every  Professor  in  this  Seminary  shall  be    in    the    following    terms, 

viz.:  I, Professor  ,  do  make  solemn   declaration   of   my  faith 

in  divine  revelation,  and  in  the  fundamental  and  distinguishing  doctrines 
of  the  Gospel  of  Christ  as  summarily  expressed  in  the  Westmiuster 
Assembly's  Shorter  Catechism. 

"  Voted,  That  the  above  declaration  shall  be  hereafter  subscribed  and 
repeated  according  to  the  requisitions  of  the  Constitution  and  the  respec- 
tive statutes;  with  the  excej^tion  that  the  terms  'Papists'  and  "  Sabel- 
lians  '  be  not  inserted  in  the  declaration  of  any  Professor  on  the  Original 
Foundation." 

A  true  copy  from  the  Records. 

C.  F.  P.  BANCROFT,  Clerk. 

April  19,  1842.  -''  Resolved,  That  the  vote  passed  Sept  27,  1826,  by 
this  Boaid,  requiring  every  Professor  in  the  Seminary  to  make  a  declara- 
tion of  his  '  faith  in  Divine  Revelation  and  in  the  fundamental  and  dis- 
tinguishing doctrines  of  the  Gospel  of  Christ  as  summarily  expressed  in 
the  Assembly's  Shorter  Catechism,  and  that  the  above  declaration  shall 
be  hereafter  subscribed  and  repeated  at  every  successive  period  of  five 
years  '  be  rescinded,  so  far  as  relates  to  every  Professor  on  the  Associate 
Foundation  —  so  that  each  Associate  Profes.sor  shall  only  be  required  to 
subscribe  and  repeat  the  creed  as  it  stands  in  article  second  of  the 
Statutes  of  the  Associate  Foundation  in  the  Theological  Seminary." 

A  true  copy  from  the  Records. 

Attest:  C.  F.  P.  BANCROFT,   Clerk. 

Exhibit  3  is  a  certified  copy  of  the  doings  of  the  Board  of 
Trustees  in  the  matter  of  the  inauguration  of  Professors 
Taylor,  Hincks,  and  Harris,  June  12  and  18,  1883. 

1  Records,  Tlieological  Seminary,  Vol.  I.  p.  2.38. 

2  Records,  Theological  Seminary,  Vol.  II.  pp.  3,  4. 


94 

June  12,  1883.  ^  "  The  Board  attended  the  inauguration  exercises 
of  Professors  Taylor  and  Hincks  at  the  chapel  Tuesday  evening.  The 
exercises  were  as  follows:  .  .  .  Reading  of  the  Creed  by  Rev.  John  P. 
Taylor,  Rev  E.  J.  Hincks  standing  by  and  consenting  thereto.  The 
President  then  propounded  to  each  the  following  constitutional  question: 
'  Do  you  now  make  and  subscribe  a  solemn  declaration  of  your  faith  in 
Divine  Revelation,  and  in  the  fundamental  and  distinguishing  doctrines 
of  the  Gospel  as  expressed  in  the  Creed  which  you  have  now  readV  '  To 
which  each  responded,  '  I  do,  believing  that  the  Creed  expresses  substan- 
tially tlie  system  of  truth  taught  in  the  Holy  Scriptures.'  Each  then 
subscribed  as  constitutionally  provided,  and  the  President  declared  them 
duly  inducted  into  office  as  Professors  in  the  Seminary." 

June  13,  10.30  a.m.  "  Inauguration  of  Professor  George  Harris.  .  .  . 
Reading  of  the  Creed  by  the  professor  elect.  The  President  then  pro- 
pounded the  constitutional  question  as  follows:  '  Do  you  now  make  a 
solemn  declaration  of  your  faith  in  Divine  Revelation,  and  in  the  funda- 
mental and  distinguishing  doctrines  of  the  Gospel  of  Christ  as  summarily 
expressed  in  the  Westminster  Assembly's  Shorter  Catechism,  and  as  more 
particularly  expressed  in  the  Creed  you  have  now  read?'  To  which  the 
candidate  replied,  '  I  do,  believing  that  this  Creed  expresses  substantially 
the  system  of  truth  taught  in  the  Holy  Scriptures.'  Mr.  Harris  having 
then  subscribed  as  required,  the  President  then  declared  him  duly  in- 
ducted into  office  as  Abbot  Professor," 

A  true  copy  from  the  Records. 

Attest:  C.  F.  P.  BANCROFT,  Clerk. 

We  read  that  to  show  the  contract  under  which  three  of 
the  later  professors  have  entered  the  service  of  the  Seminary, 
and  the  manner  in  which  they  were  inducted  into  office  ;  and 
we  shall  have  further  evidence  to  show  what  was  the  under- 
standing on  the  part  of  these  gentlemen,  as  to  the  effect  of 
their  assent  to  the  Statutes  and  Creed  and  Catechism,  in  the 
case  of  Dr.  Harris,  and  as  to  the  action  of  the  Trustees  and 
Visitors  upon  the  same,  and  that  all  this  happened  prior  to 
Professor  Smyth's  taking  the  last  declaration  upon  himself  to 
the  Associate  Creed,  and  prior  to  the  publications  complained 
of  by  the  learned  gentlemen  who  propound  this  libel.^ 

As  Exhibit  4  we  will  lay  in  a  letter  from  the  Rev.  Samuel 
Spring,  D.D.,  to  the  Rev.  Dr.  Jedidiah  Morse,  written  Dec. 
16,  1808,  and  printed  in  Wood's  "  History  of  Andover  Semi- 

1  Re(;ords,  Theological  Seminary,  Vol.  II.  j^p.  492,  493. 

2  This  testimony  will  be  found  on  pp.        .   « 


95 

nary,"  p.  623.  We  offer  this  in  order  to  show  the  practical 
construction  put  upon  the  Creed  by  one  of  the  first  Visitors, 
Dr.  Spring,  while  he  was  a  Visitor ;  he  also  being,  as  we  all 
know,  one  of  the  main  founders  of  the  institution,  and  Dr. 
Morse  another. 

In  explanation  I  may  say  this  was  written  after  the  article 
in  the  "  Antiiology,"  which  is  familiar  to  many  gentlemen  here, 
in  which  the  foundation  of  Andover  Seminary  is  very  severely 
criticised.  It  was  said  in  the  "Anthology,"  a  Unitarian  maga- 
zine then  published  in  Boston,  that  Andover  Seminary  was 
a  bundle  of  contradictions,  and  that  the  Calvinists  had  given 
themselves  away  to  the  Hopkinsians,  and  that  you  could 
not  reconcile  the  Westminster  Catechism  and  the  Associate 
Creed.  ... 

Exhibit  5  is  a  sermon  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Moses  Stuart, 
Associate  Professor  of  Sacred  Literature  at  Andover  Semi- 
nary, at  the  ordination  of  Pliny  Fiske  in  1818 ;  and  I  direct 
especial  attention  to  p.  17.  .  .  . 

Exhibit  6.  Professor  Stuart's  Letters  to  Channing, 
second  edition,  particularly  pp.  21  and  23.  These  will  be 
commented  on  hereafter  by  Dr.  Smyth,  and  it  is  perhaps 
unnecessary  to  call  attention  to  them  at  this  time. 

Exhibit  7.  Dr.  Woods's  Letters  to  Unitarians,  1820, 
particularly  pp.  44  and  45. 

Exhibit  8.  Dr.  Stuart's  Letters  to  Dr.  Miller,  referring 
particularly  to  pp.  18,  122  and  124,  comprised  in  the  volume 
marked  ^  Miscellanies  No.  One." 

Exhibit  9.  Dr.  Miller's  Letter  to  Professor  Stuart,  1823, 
referring  particularly  to  pp.  16  and  290. 

Exhibit  10  will  be  the  Biblical  Repository,  vol.  1,  p.  261, 
and  vol.  2,  p.  26,  containing  Professor  S^Alart's  articles  on 
"What  is  Sin?" 

Exhibit  11  will  be  Dr.  Dana's  Letters  to  Professor  Stuart, 
criticising  his  statements  in  the  Biblical  Repository,  1839, 
with  special  reference  to  pp.  24  and  '15. 

Exhibit  12  will  be  Professor  Stuart  on  the  Old  Testament 
Canon,  with  special  reference  to  pp.  386,  391,  404,  405,  413 
to  419. 


96 

Exhibit  13  will  be  Professor  Stuart  on  the  Apocalypse, 
with  special  reference  to  his  comments  on  chap.  20,  verse  4. 

Exhibit  14  will  be  Rev.  Dr.  Dana's  "  Remonstrance  to  the 
trustees  of  Phillips  Academy,"  and  the  "-Additional  Remarks," 
so  called,  which  form  a  sequel  to  it,  and  a  postscript,  which 
forms  a  subsequel  to  it,  all  by  Dr.  Dana,  published  in  vol.  9 
of  "  Miscellanies,"  with  special  reference  to  pp.  8  to  10,  13, 
18,  19,  23  and  24.  These  contain  Dr.  Dana's  accusations 
against  Professor  Park,  more  particularly,  for  his  heterodoxy 
at  that  time. 

I  believe  that  includes  all  the  documentary  evidence  we 
shall  trouble  the  Visitors  with.  Dr.  Smyth  will  make  an 
address  to  you,  and  after  his  address  we  shall  have  some 
other  testimony  of  an  oral  character  to  make  to  you. 

Mr.  Hoar.     Does  Dr.  Smyth  appear  as  a  witness? 

Mr.  Baldwin.  You  have  charged  certain  particulars  of 
heterodoxy  upon  Dr.  Smyth.  He  has  denied  the  charge,  and 
he  is  now  going  to  make  a  statement  in  support  of  his  denial 
of  your  charges  — 

Mr.  Hoar.     As  a  witness  ? 

Mr.  Baldwin.  —  supposing  that  in  this  court,  as  in  all 
courts  where  1  have  had  the  honor  to  appear,  the  party  ac- 
cused has  a  right  to  be  heard,  and  the  Court  is  glad  to  hear 
him. 

Mr.  Hoar.     We  still  desire  to  know  whether  he  is  going 
to  submit  argument  or  testimony. 
•   Mr.  GastojST.     I  suppose  he  has  a  right  to  submit  both. 

Mr.  Hoar.     Not  together. 

The  Chairman.     Dr.  Smyth  may  proceed. 


PROFESSOR   SMYTH'S   DEFENCE. 


May  it  please  your  Reverend  and  Honorable  Body  : 

By  the  Statutes  of  the  Associate  Foundation  it  is  made 
your  duty  "to  take  care  that  the  duties  of  every  Professor 
on  this  Foundation  be  intelligibly  and  faithfully  discharged, 
and  to  admonish  or  remove  him,  either  for  misbehavior,  het- 
erodoxy, incapacity,  or  neglect  of  the  duties  of  his  ofiQce." 
By  the  Statutes  of  the  Brown  Professorship,  which  I  have 
the  honor  to  hold,  this  Foundation  is  made  "  subject  to  visi- 
tation "  in  the  same  manner  with  the  Associate  Foundation, 
In  the  libel  filed  by  the  complainants  and  which  defines  the^ 
present  issue  I  am  not  charged  with  misbehavior,  incapacity ,_ 
or  neglect  of  official  duty.  The  sole  issue  is  one  of 
"  heterodoxy." 

I  desire  to  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  I  am  not 
charged  with  "  neglect  of  the  duties  of  my  [his]  office."  It 
is  certainly  possible  that  a  Professor,  enamored  of  some  new 
opinion  neither  out  of  "harmony  with"  nor  "antagonistic 
to"  the  Creed  of  the  Seminary,  might  spend  so  much  time 
in  maintaining  and  inculcating  it  as  to  neglect  his  duty  in 
respect  to  other  truths.  If  this  were  the  accusation  in  the 
present  case  I  am  confident  that  I  should  have  no  difficulty 
in  meeting  it.  But  wide  as  is  the  range  of  the  present  libel 
it  nowhere  ventures  upon  such  an  aspersion.  I  stand  before 
you,  even  in  these  calumnious  days,  absolutely  without 
reproach  from  any  quarter  in  this  particular. 

I  am  charged  before  you  with  "heterodoxy"  —  nothings 
more,  nothing  less,  nothing  other.  If  I  am  guilty  of  "  hetero- 
doxy "  you  can  reinove  or  admonish  me'  as  the  issue  of  this. 


98 

trial,  according  to  your  judgment  and  discretion.  If  I  am 
not  guilty  I  am  entitled  to  a  clear  acquittal. 

It  has  been  said  that  this  is  not  a  trial  for  heresy,  but  for 
a  breach  of  trust.  A  suit  for  a  breach  of  trust  would  lie 
more  properly  against  the  Trustees  or  Treasurer  of  the  Semi- 
nary. Not  a  cent  of  the  Seminary  Funds  comes  into  my 
hands  save  as  I  receive  it  from  said  Treasurer,  who  acts  by 
order  of  the  Trustees.  If  there  has  been  a  breach  of  trust  in 
the  management  of  the  funds  the  custodians  and  disbursers 
of  those  funds  are  guilty  of  this  offence,  and  there  are  avail- 
able and  natural  methods  of  prosecution.  The  arraignment 
of  five  professors,  and  the  interruption  of  their  work  in 
the  midst  of  a  term  of  study,  is  not  one  of  these  natural 
methods.  This  is  a  trial  for  heresy,  or  it  is  nothing.  The 
violation  of  solemn  promises  which  is  charged  is  simply  an 
issue  of  interpretation  of  a  creed.  The  only  charge  in  essence 
and  in  form  is  the  accusation  of  "  heterodoxy." 

It  may  indeed  be  suggested  in  qualification  of  what  I  have 
said,  that  "heterodoxy"  in  the  present  instance  is  to  be  de- 
termined by  an  unusual,  particular  and  remote  standard,  and 
that  this  criterion  is  not  the  test  which  would  now  be  im- 
posed, so  that  I  might  be  orthodox  according  to  the  rule 
which  would  be  applied  to-day,  and  yet  heterodox  according 
to  the  rule  prescribed  in  the  Seminary  Creed.  I  do  not  admit 
that  such  a  distinction  is  applicable  in  the  present  case.  I 
am  advised  by  eminent  legal  authority  that  the  word  "  het- 
erodoxy "  in  the  Statutes  cannot  be  thus  limited  and  de- 
fined. But  irrespective  of  this  objection  I  must  say  that  I 
think  better  of  our  Creed,  better  of  the  Founders  of  the  Semi- 
nary, than  such  a  contention  would  admit.  The  Creed  bears 
traces,  doubtless,  of  controversies  which  no  longer  interest 
the  public,  and  unadjusted  and  even  irreconcilable  concep- 
tions linger  in  some  of  its  phrases.  But  to  whatever  criti- 
cisms it  is  fairly  exposed,  I  "  hold,  maintain,  and  inculcate," 
Mr.  President,  that  it  does  not  bind  the  Seminary  to  an  an- 
tiquated phase  of  belief,  or  to  the  "warts  and  wens"  which 
a  living  theology  knows  how  to  get  rid  of,  but  on  the  con- 
trary, that  it  logically  leads  to  those  adjustments  of  orthodox 


99 

thought  and  belief  which  are  now  necessary,  and  in  general 
leaves  an  open  path  for  such  as  the  future  may  require. 
Such  a  statement  doul)tless  will  strike  with  surprise  some 
who  are  the  friends  of  doctrinal  progress.  There  is  abroad  an 
opinion  which  is  founded,  I  am  persuaded,  upon  a  priori  rea- 
soning, and  not  upon  scientific  examination.  It  is  like  certain 
theories  of  inspiration  which  are  derived  from  what  men 
think  the  Bible  ought  to  be  and  not  from  what  it  is.  It 
reasons  thus :  The  human  mind  has  made  doctrinal  progress 
since  the  century  opened.  A  creed  written  eighty  years  ago 
must  be  antiquated.  That  depends.  An  a  priori  "  must  be," 
science  has  taught  us,  is  not  always  an  "is  so."  It  depends 
on  who  says  it,  still  more  on  what  has  been  said.  I  am  nob 
a  eulogizer  of  the  Andover  Creed.  Clothed  in  phraseology 
which  it  requires  much  special  learning  accurately  to  inter- 
pret, composed  as  a  compromise,  designed  to  admit  under  it 
a  great  variety  of  philosopliical  theories  and  beliefs,  expres' 
sive  at  certain  points  by  its  silences  even  more  than  by  its 
utterances,  balancing  traditional  statements  by  novelties  of 
doctrine,  inserting  some  words  to  bar  against  regression  and 
others  which  make  progress  necessary,  confessing  the  author- 
ity of  Scripture  but  not  failing  to  emphasize  the  constant 
revelation  in  creation,  providencis  and  redemption,  it  cannot 
be  rightly  understood  without  a  more  careful  study  than  its 
critics  have  usually  given  to  it,  and  whatever  else  it  may  be 
I  am  persuaded  that  it  is  not  the  symbol  of  an  antiquated 
phase  of  orthodoxy,  nor  the  chain  and  ball  of  an  imprisoned 
theology.  I  appear  before  you  of  necessity  to  make  personal 
answer  to  charges  most  of  which  are  utterly  false,  charges 
some  of  which,  if  true,  would  justly  expose  me  to  the  accusa- 
tion of  heresy  under  the  standards  of  a  catholic  orthodoxy, 
but  I  have  a  larger  contention  and  a  deeper  interest.  I  de- 
sire to  secure  by  your  decision  for  those  who  may  come  after 
me  the  rights  of  a  reverent  scholarship  in  the  study  of  God's 
word ;  the  liberties  of  thouglit  and  life  which  are  necessary 
to  fruitful  biblical  study ;  the  opportunity  for  that  spontane- 
ity and  freedom  in  the  discovery  and  acquisition  of  sacred 
truth,  without  which  the  articles  of  any  creed  however  ex- 


100 

cellent  can  never  become  the  reality  of  present,  personal 
convictions  and  the  living  springs  of  knowledge,  but  must 
always  remain  the  dry  and  barren  deposit  of  a  dead  past.  I 
believe  the  result  at  which  I  aim  expresses  the  only  correct 
interpretatioTi  of  the  duties  and  rights  of  a  Professor  in 
Andover  Seminary,  as  these  obligations  and  liberties  are 
defined  and  guaranteed  in  the  Creed  and  Statutes  of  the 
Founders. 

Before,  however,  I  venture  out  upon  this  larger  field  of 
thought,  I  desire  to  meet  the  complainants  upon  the  nar- 
rowest line  which  they  may  select.  I  shall  attempt  to 
show  that,  even  when  every  indication  from  the  Founders  is 
disregarded  which  points  to  that  nobler  conception  of  the 
function  of  the  Creed  at  which  I  have  just  hinted,  the  pres- 
ent complaint  is  still  futile  and  void. 

In  order  to  convict  me  under  the  present  libel  the  com- 
plainants must  prove  that  I  hold  beliefs  which  are  incon- 
sistent with  a  valid  acceptance  of  the  Creed,  or  that  I  have 
violated  my  solemn  promise  "that  I  will  maintain  and  incul- 
cate the  Christian  faith  as  expressed  in  the  Creed  ...  so 
far  as  may  appertain  to  my  office,  according  to  the  best 
light  God  shall  give  me,  and  in  opposition  to "  various 
heresies  and  errors  specified  and  unspecified,  ancient  and 
modern. 

The  first  requirement  pertains  to  belief,  the  second  to  offi- 
cial conduct  in  matters  of  faith. 

To  establish  my  guilt  under  the  first  requirement  the  com- 
plainants must  prove  at  least  two  things  :  that  I  hold  an 
alleged  belief,  and  that  this  belief  is  contrary  to  the  Creed. 
As  I  have  intimated  it  will  be  contended  in  my  behalf  that 
there  is  still  a  further  condition  of  the  validity  of  the  accusa- 
tion, viz.,  that  this  particular  belief  be  shown  to  be  heterodox 
by  a  yet  higher  and  more  continuous  and  potent  standard  of 
orthodoxy.  Without  waiving  this  point  1  shall  not  press  it 
in  wliat  I  here  present.  I  am  content  to  insist  at  the  present 
stage  of  the  argument  upon  the  two  conditions  first  named, 
the  necessity  of  proving  that  I  hold  what  is  charged,  and 
that  such  a  belief  contravenes  the  Creed. 


101 

To  prove  my  guilt  under  the  second  requirement,  —  that 
of  official  conduct, — still  more  must  be  established  than  un- 
der the  first.  My  official  promise  must  be  considered  in  all 
its  parts,  and  as  a  whole.  No  one  can  rob  me  of  the  convic- 
tion that  whatever  have  been  my  deficiencies  I  have  endeav- 
ored to  maintain  and  inculcate  so  far  as  pertains  to  my  office 
"  the  fundamental  and  dii;tinguishing  doctrines  of  the  gospel  " 
as  expressed  in  the  Creed,  "  according  to  the  best  light  God  " 
has  given  me,  and  in  opposition  to  the  various  errors  by 
which  history  shows  that  these  truths  have  been  confronted. 
I  have  preferred,* however,  to  try  and  show  what  neglected 
element  of  truth  heresy  may  be  thriving  upon,  and  how  it 
may  be  healed  by  a  larger  truth,  rather  than  merely  to  an- 
taofonize  it.  I  submit  to  vour  careful  consideration  this  test 
of  the  validity  of  any  proof,  advanced  by  the  complainants,  of 
my  "  heterodoxy"  as  a  teacher.  It  is  a  three-fold  cord.  Each 
strand  is  necessary.  It  is  weak  as  a  broken  thread  if  either 
fails.  It  must  be  shown  that  I  have  "maintained  and  in- 
culcated," that  is,  taught  purposely  and  urgently,  what  is 
charged ;  that  I  have  done  this  in  my  work  as  a  Professor  in 
the  Seminary;  and  that  this  deed  is  a  violation  of  my  prom- 
ise to  teach  the  Christian  faith  as  expressed  in  the  Creed 
"according  to  the  best  light  God  shall  give  me."  I  ask  you 
in  simple  justice  rigidly  to  apply  this  test  to  what  on  this 
point  the  complainants  may  offer  as  proof. 

You  will  pardon  me  also  if  I  request  you  to  bear  in  mind 
that  I  am  not  on  trial  before  you  as  an  editor  of  the  Andover 
Review,  or  as  a  joint  author  of  a  volume  called  Progressive 
Orthodoxy  published  by  Messrs.  Houghton,  Mifflin  &  Co., 
4  Park  Street,  Boston.  I  would  not  draw  any  fine  or  arti- 
ficial distinction  between  my  utterances  in  the  Revieiv  and 
in  the  Lecture  Room.  No  honest  man,  certainly  no  trustwor- 
thy religious  teacher,  can  hold  a  double  and  mutually  contra- 
dictory set  of  opinions,  one  for  his  pupils,  another  for  his 
own  privacy  or  for  some  other  use.  If  I  have  taught  in  the 
Review  what  is  contrary  to  the  Creed,  I  shall  not  plead  that 
I  have  been  more  reserved  or  utterly  silent  in  my  lectures. 
I  have,  however,  a  point  to  make  which  may  assume  impor- 


102 

tance.  It  is  this.  In  the  field  of  literature  I  am  amenable 
to  your  jurisdiction  only  so  far  as  it  can  be  proved  that  what 
I  publish  is  contrary  to  the  Creed,  or  actually  violates,  or 
necessarily  and  evidently  tends  to  violate,  my  obligations  as 
Brown  Professor  of  Ecclesiastical  History  in  the  Theological 
Institution  in  Phillips  Academy  in  Andover.  In  a  volume 
or  review,  for  instance,  I  am  perfectly  at  liberty  to  dwell  ad 
libitum  on  a  single  topic.  I  might  co-operate  in  a  temperance 
journal,  or  one  devoted  to  Civil  Service  Reform,  and  write 
on  one  or  the  other  of  these  subjects  every^  month,  provided 
I  neglected  none  of  the  duties  of  my  office.  Much  more  on 
some  living  theological  or  religious  question,  under  the  same 
condition.  But  it  Avould  be  contrary  to  the  duties  of  my 
office  to  give  such  prominence  to  these  questions  in  my  lec- 
ture room.  So  far  as  the  Review  or  Progressive  Orthodoxy  is 
now  before  you,  the  issue  is  not  what  prominence  is  given  to 
a  subject,  but  whether  any  thing  is  taught  which  shows  a 
belief  or  beliefs  contrary  to  the  Creed,  or  a  violation  of  my 
promise  as  to  conduct  in  m}^  office. 

Indulge  me  in  one  other  preliminary  remark.  I  uegret 
that  the  number  and  variety  of  the  charges  in  the  libel  make 
it  impossible  for  me  to  be  brief.  I  am  charged  with  hetero- 
doxy upon  nearly  all  the  distinguishing  doctrines  of  our  Holy 
Religion.  The  indictment  seems  to  be  constructed  on  the 
plan  of  somebody's  note-books  of  a  course  of  lectures  in  Sys- 
tematic Theology,  embracing  the  leading  topics  from  the 
Being  of  God  to  the  final  resurrection  and  the  contrasted 
eternal  states.  One  of  the  signers,  in  the  original  complaint, 
wrote  "  Trustee  "  under  his  name.  He  is  a  Trustee  of  the 
Seminary,  of  many  years'  standing.  Being  a  clergyman  he 
has  been  very  often  appointed  by  his  associates  to  attend  my 
theological  examinations.  I  have  almost  invariably,  from 
year  to  year,  examined  on  the  Church  doctrine  of  the 
Trinit3\  He  knows,  or  is  inexcusable  if  he  does  not  know, 
what  I  have  taught.  He  knows,  or  ought  to  know,  that  I 
have  taught  from  year  to  year  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity, 
the  Church  doctrine;  and  that  I  "hold,  maintain  and  incul- 
cate "  it,  as  I  have  done  all  along.    I  am  thankful  that  it  does 


103 

not  devolve  upon  me  to  occupy  your  time  in  trying  to 
explain  why  he  has  deemed  it  necessary  to  sign  his  name, 
in  the  professed  interest  of  honesty  of  subscription,  to  a 
charge  that  I  teach  a  modal  Trinity,  a  charge  ^yhich  he 
knows  full  well,  or  is  inexcusable  if  he  does  not  know, 
is  baseless  and  false,  but  unless  he  and  his  associates  with- 
draw this  charge  and  others  equally  preposterous,  I  must 
take  time  to  refute  them.  Fortunately  for  the  demands 
upon  your  time  the  streugth  of  the  list  is  in  inverse  ratio 
to  its  length. 

Believing  that  you  will  appreciate  the  necessity  laid  upon 
me  of  reviewing  in  detail  and  with  thoroughness  these 
numerous  accusations,  and  reminding  you  again  of  the 
two-fold,  or  three-fold  necessities  of  evidence  adequate  to 
establish  any  one  of  these  charges,  I  now  proceed  to  their 
consideration. 

The  first  particular  charge  is,  that  I  "hold,  maintain  and 
inculcate  that  the  Bible  is  not  '  the  only  perfect  rule  of  faith 
and  practice,'  but  is  fallible  and  untrustworthy  even  in  some 
of  its  religious  teachings." 

What  has  there  been  in  the  evidence  submitted  on  this 
point  by  the  complainants  which  proves  either  that  I  hold 
what  is  charged,  or  that  there  is  any  thing  in  the  article  or 
citations  adduced  which  affords  any  presumption  that  I  thus 
teach,  or  that  any  thing  which  I  teach  or  for  which  I  am 
responsible  is  contrary  to  the  Creed  ?  I  have  not  been  able 
to  detect  a  scintilla  of  evidence  for  either  of  these  positions, 
each  and  all  of  which  must  be  established  or  the  chargre 
falls. 

Take  first  the  article  in  the  Review  entitled  '*  The  Bible 
a  Theme  for  the  Pulpit."  How  or  where  does  this  show 
that,  so  far  as  appertains  to  my  office,  I  fail  in  upholding 
the  supreme  authority  of  sacred  Scripture  ?  In  what  lies 
the  proof  that  in  the  chapel  pulpit,  or  in  my  lecture  room, 
or  in  any  public  utterance  whatsoever,  I  oppose  the  decla- 
ration of  the  Creed  "  that  the  word  of  God  contained  in 
the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  is  the  only 


104 

perfect  rule  of  faith  and  practice"?     Not  onl}^  is  no  connec- 
tion of  this  sort  traced  by  the  complainants,  they  have  done 
nothing  to  lay  the  foundation  for  a  presumption  or  sugges- 
tion in  favor  of  such  a  connection.     For  there  is  no  expres- 
sion   anywhere   in    the    article    of    the    thing    charged.     It 
contains  not  a  syllable  adverse  to  the   requirement  of  the 
Creed.     On  the  contrary,  the  article  was  written  in  the  in- 
terest of  the  doctrine  affirmed  in  the  Creed.     Its  occasion 
was  the  discovery  that  some  ministers,  recognizing  that  many 
of  their  hearers  hold  to  the  old  theor}'  that  the    Bible    in 
every  part  is  equally  authoritative   and  in  every  statement 
is  infallible  truth,  and  knowing  also  that  such  a  proposition 
cannot  be  maintained,  out  of  prudential  motives   have  with- 
drawn from  the  teachings  of  the  pulpit  any  instruction  as  to 
what  the  Bible  is  as  the  only  perfect  rule,  and  how  it  has  be- 
come such  a  rule.     The  writer  endeavored  to  enter  into  the 
thoughts  and  feelings  of  such  ministers,  to  appreciate  the 
reasons  which  influence  them,  to  state  those  reasons,  in  order 
to  point  out   to  them  that  there  is  a  better  way,  and  one 
which  it  is  the  duty  of  the  ministry  of  intelligent  churches 
to  follow.     What  now  is  the  use  made  of  this  article  by  the 
complainants?     First,  five  sentences  are  detached  from  that 
portion  in  which  the   embarrassments  of  the   preacher  are 
depicted.     Then,  a  skip  is  made  to  the  close  of  the  article 
and  a  sentence  picked  up  and  so  connected  that  its  object  is 
precisely  reversed.     It  was  written  as  a  suggestion,  at  the 
close    of    a    brief    article,    how,   by   pursuing   a   particular 
method    of    pulpit   discussion,    men    disturbed    by   the    re- 
sults of  modern    critical    study   may   be  helped  to  a   firm 
and  immovable  conviction  of  the  trustworthiness  and  per- 
fection of  sacred  Scripture  as  a  rule  of  faith  and  practice. 
It  is  quoted. as  though   it  were  designed  to  favor  a  treat- 
ment   of    the    Bible    "prejudicial    to    its    sacreduess    and 
authority." 

One  is  reminded  that  there  is  still  need  of  the  irony  with 
which  a  bishop  of  the  English  Church  two  centuries  ago 
discoursed  upon  "The  Difficulties  and  Discouragements  which 
attend  the  Study  of  the  Scriptures  in  the  way  of  Private  Judg- 


105 

ment ;  Represented  in  a  letter  to  a  young  clergyman."  He 
will  subject  himself  to  much  toil  in  study,  will  be  likely  by 
the  results  of  his  labor  to  disturb  the  peace  of  the  church 
and  bring  upon  himself  the  reproach  of  being  a  heretic^  "a 
term  which  there  is  a  strange  magic  in.  ...  It  is  supposed 
to  include  in  it  every  thing  that  is  bad ;  it  makes  every  thing 
appear  odious  and  deformed ;  it  dissolves  all  friendships,  ex- 
tinguishes all  former  kind  sentiments  however  iust  and  well 
deserved.  And  from  the  time  a  man  is  deemed  a  heretic,  it 
is  charity  to  act  against  all  the  rules  of  charity;  and  the 
more  they  violate  the  laws  of  God  in  dealing  with  him,  it  is, 
in  their  opinion,  doing  God  the  greater  service.  ...  A  search 
after  truth  will  be  called  a  love  of  novelty.  The  doubting  of 
a  single  text  will  be  scepticism  ;  the  denial  of  an  argument 
the  renouncing  of  the  faith.  ...  In  a  word  orthodoxy 
atones  for  all  vices  and  heresy  extinguishes  all  virtues.  .  .  . 
Turn  yourself  to  the  study  of  the  heathen  historians,  poets, 
orators  and  philosophers.  Spend  ten  or  twelve  years  upon 
Horace  or  Terence.  To  illustrate  a  billet-doux.,  or  a  drunken 
catch  ;  to  explain  an  obscene  jest ;  to  make  a  happy  emendation 
on  a  passage  that  a  modest  man  would  blush  at,  will  do  you 
more  credit  and  be  of  greater  service  to  you,  than  the  most 
useful  employment  of  your  time  upon  the  Scriptures ;  unless 
you  can  resolve  to  conceal  your  sentiments,  and  speak  always 
with  the  vulgar.  .  .  .  You  have  two  ways  before  you.  One 
will  enable  you  to  be  useful  in  the  world,  without  great 
trouble  to  yourself.  .  .  .  The  other  .  .  .  will  draw  on  you  an 
insupportable  load  of  infamy,  as  a  disturber  of  the  church 
and  an  enemy  to  the  orthodox  faith,  and  in  all  probability 
end  in  the  extreme  poverty  and  ruin  of  yourself  and 
family.  Which  God  forbid  should  ever  be  the  case  of  one 
who  has  no  other  views  but  to  dedicate  his  life  to  God's 
service." 

Who  has  forgotten  the  abuse  which  was  rained  upon  Pro- 
fessor Stuart  for  his  biblical  studies  ?  Writing  (Oct.  7,  1813) 
to  Dr.  Spring,  the  son  of  a  principal  author  of  the  Seminary 
Creed,  he  says  —  referring  to  the  "exegesis  of  Canticles:" 
"For   my  humble  self,  if   I  doubt   \yhether  tlie   forty-nine. 


106 

senses  can  all  be  applied  to  this  book  .  .  .  and  must  be  a 
heretic  on  this  account,  I  say  with  Vitringa,  Ego  sum  in  hac 
hceresi.  .  .   . 

"I  certainly,"  he  continues,  "do  not  think  it  worth  the 
trouble  of  writing  this  to  save  myself  from  the  imputation  of 
heresy,  among  those  who  make  all  divinity  heretical  that  is 
not  triangular.  .  .  .  '  What,  said  Father  Paoli  to  his  brother 
Jesuit,  who  was  less  dexterous  in  combating  for  the  mother 
church  than  himself.  What  did  Scarpi  say  at  the  meeting 
of  the  order?  —  He  said  he  doubted  whether  the  infallibil- 
ity of  the  Church  could  be  predicated  of  the  Pope  alone,  or 
whether  it  resided  in  an  ecumenical  council.  —  Most  abom- 
inable! and  what  did  you  tell  him? — I  told  him  that  the 
Pope  was  the  successor  of  St.  Peter. —  Well,  and  what  said 
he  ?  —  He  said  that  he  did  not  read  in  tlie  New  Testament 
of  Peter's  having  appointed  any  successor,  and  challenged  me 
to  produce  the  passage.  —  Challenged  you  to  produce  the 
passage !  —  Yes ;  and  I  was  not  able  to  recollect  it.  — 
Able  to  recollect  it!  why  did  you  not  tell  him  that  the 
Fathers  believed  as  we  do? — I  did.  —  And  what  said  he? 

—  Why,  that  the  Fathers  were  not  the  Pope,  and  so  were 
not  infallible.  —  Why  didn't  you  tell  him  that  hp  would 
endanger  the  faith  of  the  whole  Church  by  such  innovations  9 

—  I  did  try  to  argue  with  him  about  them.  —  Argue  with 
him !  you  stupid  blockhead  (fatuus  Diaboli)  —  argue  with 
him  /  Why  did  you  not  call  him  Heretic  .  .  .  ?  These  here- 
tics are  to  be  confounded  by  blows,  not  by  arguments  {fusti- 
bus  non  argumentis  confutandos').'' 

"  Thus,"  adds  Professor  Stuart,  "  believes  brother  Romeyn, 
as  truly  as  Father  Paoli,  and  for  as  good  a  reason.  If  you 
think  strange  of  this,  you  have  only  to  recollect  that  two 
pennyweights  of  brains  are  a  sufficient  apparatus  for  the 
purpose  of  guiding  a  march  through  the  whole  round  of  hard 
names  and  abusive  insinuations,  while  it  needs  several  pounds 
to  manage  an  argument."  .  .  . 

May  it  please  your  Reverend  and  Honorable  Body  I  have 
searched  diligently  through  the  printed  specifications  under 
this  charge  about  the  Scriptures,  and  have  listened  carefully 


107 

to  catch  any,  even  the  faintest,  suggestion  of  some  utterance 
for  which  I  am  responsible,  which  militates  in  the  least 
against  the  divine  authority  of  the  Scripture,  but  I  have  not 
discovered  it.  Where  is  it  found  ?  Is  an  attempt  to  show 
how  a  divine  revelation  has  come  to  us,  an  attack  upon  rev- 
elation ?  The  most  cursory  reading  of  either  of  the  articles 
named  or  cited,  shows  by  constant  incidental  expressions, 
and  by  its  whole  structure  and  design  that  the  mind  of 
the  writer  assumes  that  we  have  in  the  Bible  a  trustworthy 
and  authoritative  expression  of  the  mind  and  will  of  God. 
The  complainants  have  not  read  to  understand  even  that 
which  is  perfectly  patent  and  plain,  much  less  to  mark  and 
inwardly  digest.  They  have  been  in  search  for  means  of 
attack,  on  a  rampage  for  accusations.  Sentences  are  twisted 
from  their  connections,  quoted  by  jumping  backwards  and 
then  forwards,^  divorced  from  qualifying  declarations  in  the 
immediate  context,  begun  with  capitals  by  omission  of  im- 
portant connections  and  obliteration  of  every  indication  that 
in  the  book  they  are  not  thus  independent.  It  is  easy  to  make 
a  slip  in  citation,  as  experience  shows,  and  no  generous  critic 
will  deal  severely  with  a  mere  inadvertence.  But  where 
errors  are  numerous,  where  they  always  favor  one  side,  where 
they  are  artificial,  they  are  properly  regarded  as  evidence  of 
lack  of  candor.  That  the  quotations  are  adduced  for  the  pur- 
pose of  specification  does  not  help  the  matter.  They  are  none 
the  less  unfair  citations. 

I  will  adduce  instances  in  point. 

The  third  quotation  from  Progressive  Orthodoxy  —  com- 
mencing "Even  if  " —  begins,  in  the  book,  "  And  even  if,"  con- 
necting with  a  different  and  natural  explanation  of  our  Lord's 
method  of  reference  to  the  Pentateuch  and  Isaiah.  The  sixth 
citation,  —  beginning  "When  we  recollect"^  —  is  the  sec- 
ond member  of  a  sentence,  whose  first  member  reads  "  But 
the  slight  blemishes  in  the  very  finest  optical  instruments 
do  not  prevent  our  obtaining  from  them  data  which  to  the 
human  mind  of  finest  training  are  exceedingly  exact ;  and 

1  pp.  231,  227,  228.  207,  208,  209,  213,  214,  221^  222. 
8  Prog.  Orth.,  p.  209. 


108 

when  "  etc.  Half  a  sentence  is  taken,  the  connective  omitted 
without  indication,  and  the  whole  covered  up  by  altering  the 
capital  letter. 

The  fifth  quotation  is  followed  in  the  paragraph  from 
which  it  is  taken  by  an  antitlietic  sentence,  beginning:  "But 
this  feature  ...  is  not  its  weakness  but  its  strength,"  and 
by  further  qualification  in  the  next  paragraph  in  the  words : 
"  If  the  question  mean,  '  Must  not  such  sin  as  still  dwelt  in 
the  apostles  have  tinged  their  religious  conceptions  and 
teaching  with  error?' — we  reply,  This  could  not  have  been 
unless  they  were  more  under  the  influence  of  moral  evil  than 
we  have  any  reason  to  suppose  them  to  have  been."  That  is, 
the  answer  '  Yes '  is  quoted  and  the  answer  'No'  omitted; 
and  this  when  the  negative  refutes  the  charge  of  holding  that 
the  Bible  is  "fallible  and  untrustworthy  even  in  some  of  its 
religious  teacliings." 

The  seventh  quotation,  —  beginning,  "The  views  of  Christ," 
—  recognizes  that  other  ages  than  the  apostolic  have  been 
blessed  with  men  in  whom  dwelt  the  Spirit  of  wisdom  and 
revelation.  It  is  overlooked  that  before  the  paragraph  closes 
allusion  is  made  to  ancient  prophets,  and  that  it  is  added : 
"  No  teacher  in  the  church  has  ever  arisen  or  can  ever  arise 
so  filled  with  the  Spirit  as  not  to  depend  upon  the  apostles 
for  conceptions  of  God.  We  can  see  that  their  situation  and 
their  exceptionally  exalted  life  make  following  teachers  de- 
pendent upon  them  as  they  were  not  dependent  upon  any 
predecessor  except  Christ ;  that  their  conceptions  of  our  Lord 
are  the  framework  into  which  all  the  subsequent  thoughts  of 
his  church,  about  Him  and  his  work,  must  be  set ;  and  the 
norm  hy  which  the  teaching  of  the  church  must  shape  itself." 
And  then  the  writer  goes  on  to  show  that  this  follows  "ne- 
cessarily "  from  their  historical  relation  to  the  Incarnation ; 
that  beyond  this  intimate  personal  acquaintance  with  the 
"  Word  of  life,"  there  was  added  "  the  inner  revelation " 
and  ^'■pre-eminent  endowment  of  the  Spirit;"  that  the  hope 
even  must  be  excluded  of  other  teachers  arising  superior  to 
them ;  that  their  conditions  of  spiritual  endowment  were 
*' absolutely    unique;"    that   the   greatest   thinkers  of  the 


109 

church  have  never  been  able  to  correct  one  of  their  concep- 
tions of  Christ  and  that  in  them  was  fulfilled  Christ's  prom- 
ise to  lead  them  "into  the  whole  truth." ^ 

I  will  not  go  on  with  this  exposure.  These  citations  are 
wholly  insufficient  for  their  purpose.  They  are  vitiated,  first, 
by  their  irrelevancy.  They  fail,  every  one,  as  they  stand,  to 
prove  the  charge,  or  even  to  specify  it.  They  are  wholly 
defaulted,  secondly,  by  being  garbled.  When  taken  in  their 
proper  connections  they  turn  into  a  positive  refutation  of  the 
charge —  a  refutation  which  would  be  repeated  again  and 
again  by  further  citation,  by  passages  for  instance  which 
may  be  found  on  pp.  10,  207,  214,  227,  as  well  as  on  those 
already  adduced. 

The  specifications  show  only  this,  that  sometimes  in  Pro- 
gressive Orthodoxy  the  word  imperfection  is  used,  or  its  equiv- 
alent, whereas  in  the  Creed  the  adjective  "perfect"  is  em- 
ployed. But  it  is  not  thereby  shown  that  the  book  affirms 
to  be  imperfect  what  the  Creed  says  is  perfect.  The  Creed 
affirms  perfection  of  the  Word  of  God  contained  in  the  Scrip- 
tures of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  as  a  rule  of  faitli  and 
practice.  I  take  no  advantage,  though  I  might  on  tiie  theory 
of  a  merely  literal  interpretation,  of  the  words  "  contained 
in."  To  me  the  Bible  is  the  Word  of  God.  But  the  perfec- 
tion ascribed  to  it  in  the  Creed  is  one  of  use  and  function. 
It  is  the  only  perfect  guide  in  a  religious  life,  "  in  faith  and 
practice." 

This  formula  did  not  originate  with  the  framers  of  the 
Seminary  Creed.  The  Westminster  Standards  declare  Holy 
Scripture  "to  be  the  rule  of  faith  and  life,"-  "the  only  rule 
of  faith  and  obedience,"^  "the  only  rule  to  direct  us  how  we 
may  glorify  and  enjoy  Him."  *  And  among  the  questions  to 
candidates  for  ordination  is  this  one:  "Do  you  believe  the 
Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament  to  be  the  Word  of 
God,  the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice  ?  "  This  last 
formula  appears  occasionally  in  local  New  England  creeds. 
The  founders  apply  the  word  infallible  to  the   "  revelation 

1  Prog.  Orth.,pp.  210-213.  _     2  Confession,  Art,  II. 

*  Larger  Catechism,  3.  *  /Shorter  Catechism.  2, 


110 

which  God  constantly  makes  of  Himself  in  his  works  of  cre- 
ation, providence  and  redemption."  Their  phrase  respect- 
ing the  Scriptures  is,  "the  only  perfect  rule  of  faith  and 
practice."  It  is  the  Westminster  formula  with  the  change 
of  "infallible"  to  "perfect."  But  the  formula  is  older  than 
the  Westminster  Standards.  It  summed  up  the  universal 
Protestant  contention  against  the  Roman  Catholic  doctrine 
of  Scripture.  The  Council  of  Trent  exalted  Tradition  to  a 
place  of  co-ordinate  authority  with  Scripture.  The  Bible 
was  not  the  only  rule  because  there  was  another.  It  was 
not  the  only  perfect  rule  because  it  was  not  a  complete  rule 
but  partial.  Practically  it  was  not  even  an  infallible  rule 
because  it  needed  to  be  supplemented  by  Tradition,  and  to  be 
authoritatively  interpreted  by  the  Church,  and  with  the 
Bible  alone  as  his  guide  a  man  might  go  astray  from  its  in- 
sufficiency. This  great  controversy  brought  into  use  such 
expressi(uis  as  I  have  cited  from  the  Westminster  Standards, 
and  similar  ones  with  which  we  are  familiar  in  our  local  con- 
fessions. If  you  will  look  into  Chillingworth's  great  work 
on  "The  Religion  of  Protestants,"  in  which  he  contended 
for  the  famous  maxim  that  the  Bible  alone  is  this  religion, 
you  will  find  passim  the  expressions  "a  perfect  rule  of  faith,"  ^ 
"the  only  rule"  and  also  abundant  evidence  that  their  mean- 
ing is  what  I  have  just  explained,  viz.,  that  Sacred  Scripture 
is  "  the  only  perfect  rule  of  faith  and  practice,"  because  it  is 
a  complete  rule,  needing  no  supplementing  by  tradition,  a 
plain  rule  requiring  no  infallible  interpreter,  wliether  church 
or  pope,  council  or  creed,  a  sure  rule  for  whoever  follows 
its  teachings  will  believe  and  do  what  is  acceptable  to  God 
and  find  eternal  life.  In  a  word  the  formula  as  expounded 
by  this  acknowledged  master  has  a  negative  and  positive 
side.  It  denies  that  other  rules  are  necessary  for  men  either 
as  a  co-ordinate  source  of  religious  knowledge  or  as  an  indis- 
pensable interpreter,  and  it  affirms  that  Scripture  can  make 
the  man  of  God  "  perfect,  thoroughly  furnished  unto  all  good 
works."  ^  Scripture  is  thus  "  the  only  perfect  rule  of  faith  and 
practice." 

See  particularly  Pt.  I.,  c.  2.  ^2  Tim.  iii.  17. 


in 

In  perfect  consistency  with  this  exposition,  Chillingworth 
opens  the  door  for  all  the  liberty  that  a  sound  historical  criti- 
cism requires  in  the  investigation  of  the  method  in  which  the 
Bible  became  such  a  rule  of  faith.  There  is  not  an  utterance 
cited  by  the  complainants  which  is  not  covered  in  principle 
by  his  masterly  statement,  and  when  the  complainants  attempt 
to  put  such  expressions  as  they  quote  from  Progressive  Ortho- 
doxy and  the  Review  into  antagonism  to  the  Creed  they  are 
not  only  ineffective,  but  they  show  their  ignorance  of  princi- 
ples which  were  formulated  in  the  beginnings  of  Protestantism 
and  long  since  settled  by  one  of  its  universally  recognized 
and  foremost  champions.  Why,  even  so  familiar  a  book  as 
Professor  Stuart's  Old  Testament  Canon  contains  many  a  sen- 
tence just  as  much  and  just  as  little  objectionable  as  those 
picked  out  and  up  by  the  complainants. 

Let  me  present  a  few  of  these  which  have  been  handed  to 
me  by  one  of  my  colleagues  : 

In  regard  to  drawins;  the  line  between  what  is  abroojated  in  the 
Old  Testament  and  what  is  now  of  divine  authority  and  obhga- 
tion  he  sa3's  :  "  The  ultimate  appeal,  then,  is  to  understandhig  and 
reason  ;  not  in  order  to  establish  the  principles  in  question,  for 
Christ  and  his  apostles  have  established  them,  but  to  make  a  dis- 
criminating and  judicious  use  of  these  principles  in  determuiiug 
what  still  remains  in  full  force."      (p.  386.) 

All  that  refers  to  Old  Testament  rites  and  forms  of  worship  is 
abrogated.  "It  remains  now  only  as  the  history  of  what  is  past, 
not  the  rule  of  action  for  the  present  or  the  future."  It  unfolds  "  in 
what  manner  divine  Providence  has  been  educating  the  human  race  ; 
by  what  slow  and  cautious  steps  religion  has  advanced,  and  how 
utterl}'  impossible  it  is  for  a  religion  that  abounds  in  rites  and 
forms  to  make  much  effectual  progress  au3'where,  either  among 
Jews  or  Gentiles ;  still  more  impossible  that  it  should  be  a  religion 
to  convert  the  world."     (p.  391.) 

So  too  all  statutes  and  ordinances  that  pertain  merely  to  the 
form  of  th6  Jewish  ecclesiastical  and  civil  state,      (pp.  404-405.) 

"  Rarely  will  one  find  an}- considerable  portion  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment where  there  is  nothing  in  it  of  the  local  and  temjjoral  that 
must  be  abstracted,  in  order  for  us  to  reduce  it  to  practice." 
(p.  404.) 


112 

The  devotional  psalms,  "the  Psalms  of  complaint,  of  thanks- 
giving, of  imprecation,  and  others,  all  have  something  which  savors 
of  time  and  place  and  circumstances.  These  we  must  omit,  ex- 
cepting that  in  the  exegesis  of  the  Psalm  we  must  treat  them  as 
essential,  but  not  in  the  practical  use  of  it."      (p.  405.) 

"  It  is  so  with  the  Mosaic  laws." 

"  Even  the  ten  commandments  are  not  altogether  an  exception 
to  this."  The  reference  here  is  to  visiting  iniquity  to  third  and 
fourth  generation,  and  to  the  promise  that  thy  days  may  be  long 
in  the  land. 

With  reference  to  the  question  what  is  of  present  practical  value  in 
the  Old  Testament  he  says  :  "  How  few  [of  the  commentaries]  have 
satisfied  the  claims  of  the  reason  and  understanding  of  men  !  " 

"  A  commentary  that  would  give  us  simply  what  is  fairly  to  be 
learned  from  ever}'  part  of  the  Old  Testament  in  respect  to  present 
dut}',  or  as  to  doctrine  ...  is  one  of  the  things  yet  to  be  ;  for  I 
cannot  think  that  it  now  is."     (p.  406.) 

"  What  can  we  say  of  those  teachers  who  find  just  as  full  and 
complete  a  revelation  in  the  Old  Testament  of  every  Christian 
doctrine,  as  in  the  New?  (p.  407.)  Instances  Trinity,  Immor- 
tality and  Future  State. 

"We  must  attribute  no  more  to  the  Old  Testament  than  belongs 
to  it.  The  glory  of  the  gospel  is  not  to  be  taken  away  and  given 
to  a  mere  introductory  dispensation."      (p.  408.) 

"  We  should  regard  them  (Old  Testament  books)  in  the  light  of 
Bi  preface  or  of  an  introduction  to  the  Gospel." 

Of  current  abuse  of  Old  Testament  texts  :  "  Books  of  such 
a  peculiar  nature  as  Job  and  Ecclesiastes,  for  example,  are  resorted 
to  with  as  much  confidence  for  proof  texts  as  if  they  were  all  pre- 
ceptive and  not  an  account  of  disputes  and  doubts  about  religious 
matters."  (p.  409.) 

"  Tiie  Psalms  that  breathe  forth  imprecations  are  appealed  to  by 
some,  as  justifying  the  spirit  of  vengeance  under  the  gospel,  instead 
of  being  regarded  as  the  ejvpression  of  a  peculiar  state  of  mind  in 
the  writer,  and  of  his  imperfect  knowledge  with  regard  to  the  full 
spirit  of  forgiveness." 

He  deprecates  the  "violence  done  to  the  understanding  and 
to  sober  common  sense  "  in  exegesis,  and  says  it  "  will  be  certain 
to  avenge  itself  at  last."    (p.  410.) 

"  There  are  not  a  few  persons,  who  seem  to  feel  that  if  the  Old 
Testament  is  a  work  of  inspiration  it  must  stand  on  the  same  level 


113 

with  the  New,  and  be  equally  obligatory.  There  is  something  of 
truth  in  this,  and  not  a  little  of  error."    (p.  413.) 

"  We  have  a  new  and  a  better  Testament  than  the  ancient.  In 
itself  it  is  a  sufficient  guide."    (p.  414.) 

"  Of  one  thing  I  am  full}' persuaded,  which  is,  that  a  proper  use 
of  the  Old  Testament  will  be  made  in  all  cases,  by  no  one  who 
cleaves  to  the  notion,  that  because  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  were 
inspired  they  are  therefore  absolutely  perfect.  '  Such  perfection 
belongs  not  to  a  prefatory'  or  merely  introductory  dispensation. 
It  is  only  a  relative  perfection  that  the  Old  Testament  can  claim  ; 
and  this  is  comprised  in  the  fact,  that  it  answered  the  end  for 
which  it  was  given.  It  was  given  to  the  world,  or  to  the  Jewish 
nation,  in  its  minority."    (p.  415.) 

''With  the  exception  of  such  sins  as  were  highly  dishonorable 
to  God  and  injurious  to  the  welfare  of  men,  the  rules  of  duty  were 
not  in  all  cases  strictly  drawn." 

"The  Old  Testament  moralit}',  in  respect  to  some  points  of  rela- 
tive duty,  is  behind  that  of  the  Gospel  "    (p.  416). 

"  The  Gospel  is  ever  and  always  the  ultima  ratio  in  all  matters 
of  religion  and  morals.  It  is  .  .  .  the  highest  tribunal.  What- 
ever there  is  in  the  Old  Testament  which  falls  short  of  this  .  .  . 
is  of  course  not  obligatory  on  us  "    (p.  417.) 

"  The  spirit  of  New  Testament  doctrine,  morality,  modes  of 
worship  (so  far  as  modes  are  touched  upon),  is  alwaj's  to  be 
applied  to  judging  of  our  obligations  to  the  ancient  Scriptures." 

"  There  are  imperfections  in  the  ancient  system ;  but  thej-  are 
such  as  the  nature  of  the  case  rendered  necessary.  They  are  in 
accordance  with  the  principle  of  the  slow  and  gradual  amendment 
of  the  race  of  man."   (p.  418.) 

In  arguing  against  Norton  he  emphasizes  the  divine  origin  and 
authorit}'  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  as  admitted  bj'  Christ  and  his 
apostles  and  Christians  generally  and  then  says  :  "  Mr.  Norton  has 
scanned  Old  Testament  matters  in  the  light  of  New  Testament 
revelation,  and  then  passed  sentence  of  condemnation  upon  the 
imperfect,  because  it  is  not  perfect.  Is  this  equitable  dealing? 
,  .  .  Is  it  any  satisfactor}'  objection  against  this  or  that  specific 
thing  in  the  Old  Testament  that  the  New  has  better  arranged  or 
modified  it?  Is  it  conclusive  against  the  histor}-  or  character  of 
David  and  other  potentates,  that  they  did  things  in  war,  which 
were  common  in  those  days,  but  which  the  Gospel  and  a  better 
state  of  things  now  forbid?  "      (p.  419). 


114 

Particular  2.  The  complainants  quote  from  the  Avdover 
Review^  May,  1886,  p.  522,  hut  overlook  the  statement  on  p. 
524: 

"  So  long  as  the  doctrines  of  universal  sinfulness,  of  redemption 
and  eternal  life  only  through  Jesus  Christ  the  Saviour,  who  was 
TRUE  God  and  true  man,  and  the  doctrine  of  eternal  condemnation 
to  those  who  do  not  believe  on  Christ,  —  so  long  as  these  doctrines 
are  faithfully-  and  generally  preached  we  must  conclude  that  the 
pulpit  which  is  orthodox  in  name  is  in  the  best  sense  orthodox  in 
fact."     See  also  Progressive  Orthodoxy^  pp.  22  sqq. 

Particular  3.  In  the  words  "  are  not  found  "  (quoted  from 
Progressive  Orthodoxy^  p.  47),  there  is  an  obvious  reference 
to  what  is  learned  from  history  and  observation.  The  dis- 
cussion does  not  concern  itself  with  exceptional  cases,  but 
with  the  broad  and  patent  fact  of  the  moral  helplessness  of 
mankind  apart  from  Christ. 

Pages  54-56  are  then  cited  ;  but  the  extract  opens,  if  we 
interpret  aright  the  reference,  with  the  declaration  : 

"But  Christ's  power  to  represent  or  be  substituted  for  man  is 
alwa3's  to  be  associated  with  man's  power  to  repent.  The  possi- 
bility of  redeeming  man  lies  in  the  fact  that  although  he  is  by  act 
and  inheritance  a  sinner,  yet  under  the  appropriate  influences  he 
is  capable  of  repenting.  The  power  of  repentance  remains,  and 
to  this  power  the  gospel  addresses  itself."  "It  is  to  this  power 
that  Christ,  the  holy  and  the  merciful,  attaches  himself."  "  Now 
the  power  of  repentance,  which,  so  far  as  it  exists,  is  the  power 
of  recuperation,  is  superior  to  the  necessities  of  past  wrong-doing 
and  of  present  habit."   (p.  55.) 

It  is  indeed  stated  that  "  Man  left  to  himself  cannot  have 
a  repentance  which  sets  him  free  from  sin  and  death,"  and 
that  the  race,  without  Christ,  "  would  be  hopelessly  destitute 
of"  the  requisite  "powers  for  repentance  and  holiness." 
But  here  the  writer  is  evidently  contemplating  a  radical  and 
complete  restoration  of  men  to  sonship  and  freedom.  Com- 
pare Paul's  account  of  his  own  experience  in  the  seventh  of 
Romans,  and  these  words  in  Ephesians  ii.  11,  12,  "Where- 


115 

fore  remember,  that  aforetime  ye,  the  Gentiles  in  the  flesh, 
.  .  .  were  at  that  time  separate  from  Christ,  having  no  hope 
and  without  God  in  the  world." 

With  the  language  quoted  from  p.  58,  compare  what  is 
said  on  pp.  59  and  60  :  "  Christ  brings  God  the  Person  to 
man  the  person,  and  in  such  manner  that  God  is  known  as 
the  God  of  holy  love,  the  loving  and  holy  Father.  The 
goodness  of  God  leads  men  to  repentance."  "  Or  reversing 
the  order  and  advancing  to  the  ultimate  fact  that  redemption 
originates  with  God,  we  may  say  that  man  is  the  penitent 
and  obedient  man  because  God  in  Christ  is  the  reconciling 
and  forgiving  God."  The  discussion  deals  with  the  great 
facts  of  human  recovery  from  sin.  The  distinction  between 
natural  ability  and  moral  inability  is  important ;  but  the 
original  Hopkinsians  never  thought  of  putting  the  stress 
upon  it  which  some  later  theologians  have  laid.  Of  one  of 
these  it  was  said,  when  the  remark  was  made  that  he  claimed 
to  represent  the  Hopkinsians,  '  Yes,  with  this  difference  : 
they  exalted  divine  efficiency ;  he,  human  efficiency.'  The 
writer  of  the  article  in  Progressive  Orthodoxy  seeks  to  ap- 
prehend the  real  saving  powers  in  the  cross  of  Christ.  His 
critics  appear  to  be  fumbling  over  the  distinction  of  natural 
and  moral  ability. 

Following  their  usual  method,  these  complainants  next 
turn  back  a  few  pages  and  pick  up  a  sentence  on  p.  55,  and, 
as  is  not  unusual  with  them,  overlook  other  sentences  on  the 
same  page  which  ought  to  \\^ve  entirely  relieved  their  dis- 
tress. We  need  not  quote  over  again  what  has  just  been 
presented.  Finally  the  sentence  is  taken  from  p.  126 ; 
"  Where  in  the  realm  of  natural  law,  can  the  Spirit  find 
mateiial  or  motive  fitted  to  this  most  difficult  of  all  tasks 
—  the  convincement  of  sin  ? "  As  this  is  a  question  we 
might  wait  perhaps  for  the  complainants  to  answer  it.  Any 
contribution  they  may  thus  make  to  Christian  theology  will 
be  cordially  welcomed.  Agassiz  seems  to  have  doubted 
whether  nature  alone  gives  "  any  very  clear  mark  of  the 
character  of  the  Creator."^     But  this  is  not  the  point  to  be 

1  See  Allen's  Our  Liberal  Movement  in  Theology,  p.  157. 


IIG 

here  discussed.  What  is  there  in  all  that  is  adduced  which 
shows  any  contrariety  of  opinion  to  the  statements  of  the 
Creed?  Man's  natural  powers  of  moral  agency  are  not 
denied,  but  asserted.  It  is  everywhere  assumed  that  men 
are  responsible  for  their  sins.  The  discussion  of  the  book 
relates  to  a  different  question,  namely,  How  is  man  saved? 
The  following  extract  from  the  earl}-  pages  of  the  article  on 
The  Atoytement^  from  which  nearly  all  the  specifications  are 
taken,  sufficiently  shows  this  : 

"Now  the  message  of  the  gospel  unquestionabl}'  is  that  man 
is  not  bound  under  ethical  in  the  sense  in  which  he  is  bound  under 
physical  necessity ;  that  forces  are  available  for  the  moral  and 
spiritual  life  b}'  which  man  can  be  delivered  from  the  worst  conse- 
quences of  sin,  and  can  become  a  new  creature.  Transformation 
may  be  rapid  and  complete.  Man  may  be  translated  from  the 
dominion  of  merciless  necessity  into  the  life  of  freedom  and  love. 
The  new  and  higher  force  is  the  revelation  of  God  in  Christ, 
through  which  the  power  of  sin  is  broken  and  the  penalty  of  sin 
remitted.  If  all  this  is  true,  the  gospel  gains  a  profounder  mean- 
ing than  it  has  ever  yielded  before.  The  church  comes  now  to 
man,  well  aware  that  he  cannot  be  separated  fi'om  custom,  habit, 
heredit}',  fixedness  of  character,  the  social  organism  of  which  he  is 
part.  It  is  seen  that  redemption  must  be  grounded  in  reason,  and 
must  meet  the  actual  conditions  of  life  and  character  and  societ}'. 
Atonement  must  express  and  reveal  God  as  the  supreme  Reason 
and  perfect  Righteousness,  who  cannot  den}-  himself,  and  who 
cannot  disregard  nor  annul  the  moral  law  which  is  established  in 
truth  and  right.  Christian  thought,  having  established  itself  on 
the  intrinsic,  absolute  right  and  on  the  inexorableness  of  law 
so  firmly  that  these  ma}'  be  accepted  as  postulates  in  all  the  in- 
quir}',  agreeing  so  far  forth  with  Anselm  on  the  one  hand  and  with 
the  latest  natural  ethics  on  the  other,  is  going  forward  now  to  learn 
if  any  ethical  ends  are  secured  by  the  revelation  of  God  in  Christ, 
and  secured  in  such  a  way  that  God  energizes  in  man  and  society 
for  a  moral  transformation  so  radical  and  complete  that  it  may  be 
called  salvation,  redemption,  eternal  life,  divine  sonship.  .  .  . 

"This  is  the  question  to-daj'  concerning  atonement,  —  What 
moral  and  spiritual  ends  are  secured  by  the  sacrificial  life  and 
death  of  Christ?     How  does  God's  attitude  towards  man  change. 


117 

and  man's  attitude  towards  God  change,  so  that  there  is  sufficient 
power  for  the  transformation  of  ethical  and  spiritual  life  as  against 
the  tendencies  of  moral  corruption  ?  Evidentl}'  the  result  is  of  a 
kind  that  cannot  be  brought  about  by  sheer  omnipotence,  but  only, 
if  at  all,  by  truth  and  love.  Thought  must  move  in  the  spiritual, 
not  in  the  physical  realm." 

We  add  without  comment  a  few  sentences  which  show  the 
point  of  view  and  the  care  exercised  to  suggest  necessary- 
qualifications. 

"  Regeneration  thus  acquires  a  large  and  an  exact  meaning  under 
Christianity.  We  would  not  deny  the  existence  of  regenerate  life 
outside  Christianity.  ...  If  we  say  the  least,  we  can  say  no  less 
than  that  when  we  pass  beyond  the  method  of  the  conscious  re- 
newal of  the  spiritual  life  in  Christ,  we  pass  at  once  into  what  is 
exceptional,  vague,  and  indeterminate,  (pp.  127,  128.) 

"  The  moral  and  spiritual  recovery  of  mankind  even  as  an  aim 
of  benevolent  purpose,  presupposes  the  provision  of  a  power  in 
motive,  and  a  use  of  this  power  proportionate  to  the  evil  to  be 
confronted,  and  the  good  to  be  accomplished.  '  It  was  the  good 
pleasure  of  the  Father  that  in  Him  should  all  the  fullness  dwell.' 
The  fullness  was  set  over  against  the  need.  Christianity  is  not  a 
matter  of  words,  but  of  deed  and  of  power.  Whatever  we  may 
think  of  antecedent  revelation  the  apostle  teaches  us  the  large  fact 
and  truth  in  the  case  when"  he  says,  even  of  the  days  of  Jesus' 
earthly  ministry,  '  The  Spirit  was  not  yet  given,  for  Jesus  was  not 
yet  glorified.'  "      (p.  121.) 

The  Creed  affirms  "that  every  man  is  personally  de^ 
praved ;  "  "  that  being  morally  incapable  of  recovering  the 
image  of  his  Creator,  which  was  lost  in  Adam,  every  man  is 
justly  exposed  to  eternal  damnation  ;  so  that,  except  a  man 
be  born  again,  he  cannot  see  the  Kingdom  of  God  ; "'  "  that 
.  .  .  the  Son  of  God,  and  He  alone,  by  his  suffering  and  death, 
has  made  atonement  for  the  sins  of  all  men;"  "that  the 
righteousness  of  Christ  is  the  only  ground  of  a  sinner's  justi- 
fication ;  that  this  righteousness  is  received  through  faith  ; " 
"  that  regeneration  and  sanctification  are  effects  of  the  creating 
and  renewing  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit;"  .  .  .  "that  the 


118 

ordinary  means  by  which  these  benefits  [of  redemption]  are 
communicated  to  us,  are  the  word,  sacraments,  and.  prayer ; " 
"  that  God's  decrees  perfectly  consist  with  human  liberty ; " 
"  that  man  has  understanding  and  corporeal  strength  to  do  all 
that  God  requires  of  him ;  so  that  nothing,  but  the  sinner's 
aversion  to  holiness,  prevents  his  salvation." 

Progressive  Orthodoxy  recognizes  man's  responsibility  for 
his  sins,  affirms  his  moral  ruin,  and  emphasizes  the  right- 
eousness which  is  by  faith  in  Christ  and  the  renewing  work 
of  the  Spirit.  I  am  unable  to  see  wherein  this  book  fails  to 
conserve  the  principles  enunciated  in  the  Creed,  on  these 
topics.  They  seem  to  me  to  gain  a  new  depth  of  meaning 
and  a  higher  degree  of  reasonableness  from  the  fact  that  the 
authors  give  to  the  universality  of  the  Atonement  and  to  the 
Incarnation  the  primary  and  central  place  in  theology.  Man's 
moral  agency  becomes  the  activity  of  a  child  of  God,  and  sov- 
ereignty blends  with  fatherhood.  The  reality  and  guilt  of  sin 
grow  darker,  as  the  way  of  escape  grows  brighter.  I  do  not 
the  less  accept  the  principles  of  moral  agency  contained  in  arti- 
cles of  the  Creed  which  I  have  cited  because  they  become 
more  profound  and  far-reaching  by  reason  of  a  doctrine  which 
the  Creed  also  contains,  though  without  indicating  its  power 
of  illumination  ;  I  refer  to  the  article  on  the  universality  of  the 
Atonement.  If  the  Eternal  Son  became  Man  and  died  for  all 
whose  nature  He  made  his  own,  then  moral  agency,  in  a  world 
or  age  in  which  this  is  the  central  and  supreme  revelation  of 
what  is  divine,  necessarily  transcends  the  bounds  of  either  a 
legal  or  imperial  sovereignty.  I  think  tljat  the  fundamental 
principle  of  Progressive  Orthodoxy  is  in  the  Creed,  and  that  we 
have  a  right  to  interpret  other  associated  doctrines  by  it.  I 
maintain  also  that  these  doctrines,  so  far  as  they  are  not  in- 
consistent with  this  principle,  are  better  held  the  more  they 
are  connected  with  it  and  systematized  by  it. 

Particular  4-  I  have  already,  in  my  Keply,  called  atten- 
tion to  the  way  in  which  the  quotation  marked  as  from  page 
64  is  made  up.  I  have  also  affirmed  my  belief  that  "  every 
man  who  sins  is  lost,  and  is  in  danger  of  being  remedilessly 
lost."     I  will  now  simply  add  a  few  quotations,  several  of 


119 

them  lying  between  the  two  page  references,  55  and  64,  which 
are  given  by  the  complainants  in  connection  with  this  par- 
ticular. Their  point,  it  will  be  borne  in  mind  as  I  read,  is, 
that  I  hold,  maintain  and  inculcate  that  men  are  not  sinners 
unless  they  have  heard  of  Christ,  or  at  any  rate  are  not  "  in 
danger  of  being  lost."  On  page  41  and  again  on  page  47 
sinfulness  is  predicated  of  man  universally.  On  page  48  it  is 
said  :  "  The  consequences  of  holiness  and  of  sin  cannot  be  set 
aside  by  the  will  of  God.  On  page  54  the  garbled  paragraph 
opens,  in  its  second  sentence,  with  recognizing  "  the  fact "  that 
man  "  is  by  act  and  inheritance  a  sinner,"  and  its  concluding 
sentence  says  that  "on  account  of  Christ  man  can  be  deliv- 
ered from  condemnation.'"  On  the  opposite  page  (57)  we 
read :  .  .  "  God  cannot  be  regardless  of  law  nor  indifferent 
to  sin  in  saving  man  from  punishment.''''  On  the  next  page 
it  is  said :  "  The  ideal  relation  of  God  is  love,  but  the  actual 
relation  is  wrath ;"  on  page  60,  "  He  who  is  not  moved  to 
penitence  and  faith  by  Christ  is  under  a  greater  condemna- 
tion ;  "  on  page  61 :  "  It  is  on  account  of  Christ  that  God  can 
forgive,  on  account  of  Christ  that  men  are  not  left  helpless 
and  condemned  under  the  necessities  of  unchangeable  law." 
On  page  177  the  cause  of  missions  is  recognized  as  resting 
on  "the  postulates  of  universal  sinfulness,  universal  atone- 
ment, and  the  indispensableness  of  faith."  And  in  the  con- 
cluding article  of  the  book  these  postulates  are  re-affirmed, 
and  it  is  added  :  We  have  accepted  these  postulates  in  their 
length  and  breadth.  We  have  not  reduced  but  rather  have 
magnified  their  meaning."  And  yet  in  the  face  of  these  ex- 
plicit statements  we  are  charged  with  teaching  that  men  are 
not  sinners  "  save  as  they  have  received  a  knowledge  of  the 
historic  Christ ! " 

Particular  5.  I  do  not  think  that  I  need  give  any  addi- 
tional references  here,  and  I  will  merely  re-affirm  the  reply 
already  submitted. 

Particular  6.  On  page  33  there  is  a  distinct  recognition 
that  the  Apostle  Paul  teaches  the  propitiatory  nature  of 
Christ's  sacrifice ;  and  on  page  48  an  equally  clear  acceptance  of 
the  Anselmic  principle  of  a  "  necessity  ...  in  the  ethical  being 


120 

of  God  .  .  .  which  even  his  will  cannot  contradict  nor  super- 
sede." "...  God  cannot  be  regardless  of  law  nor  indifferent 
to  sin  in  saving  man  fiom  punishment."  When  it  is  said,  "  It 
must  be  confessed,  however,  that  it  is  not  clear  how  the  suffer- 
ings and  death  of  Christ  can  be  substituted  for  the  punish- 
ment of  sin,"  this  is  not  a  suggestion  of  doubt  as  to  the  fact 
of  Atonement  but  a  statement  of  the  problem,  and  the  key  to 
the  reasoning  which  follows.  The  complainants  have  con- 
fused two  lines  of  approach  to  the  subject  (p.  57),  and 
failed  to  observe  that  the  familiar  one,  on  which  their  own 
thoughts  more  naturally  travel,  is  recognized  but  not  pur- 
sued because  it  is  so  well  understood.  Perhaps  if  they 
would  kindly  endeavor  to  think  out  what  is  suggested  by 
the  word  "  realizing,"  in  one  of  the  closing  sentences  of  the 
article  from  which  they  quote,  —  "In  the  Atonement  God 
provided  redemption  for  the  world  by  realizing  his  holy  love 
in  the  eyes  of  all  the  nations"  —  their  apprehensions  would  be 
relieved.  Will  they  suggest  a  thought  or  expression  that 
more  deeply  penetrates  into  the  nature  of  the  mysterious 
sacrifice  on  Calvary  than  that  by  which  it  is  opened  to  our 
reverent  gaze  as  a  Realization  in  the  fullness  of  time,  at  the 
turning  point  of  human  history,  through  an  incarnate  Re- 
deemer and  for  the  purpose  of  man's  redemption,  of  God's 
righteous  and  holy  love  ? 

And  then  will  the  complainants,  in  addition,  please  to 
point  out  what  is  the  theory  of  the  Atonement  made  binding 
in  the  Creed  as  a  condition  of  a  trust  ?  Where  is  it  found, 
and  how  is  it  expressed  ? 

Particular  7.  The  most  charitable  interpretation  of  this 
accusation  is,  that  it  is  a  sheer  blunder,  a  blunder  however 
which  nothing  but  the  oppressive  exigencies  of  this  "  friendly 
suit"  could  have  led  sensible  men  to  commit.  It  appears 
that  it  was  not  the  original  intention  of  the  complainants  to 
file  charges  and  specifications  themselves,  but  when  your 
Reverend  and  Honorable  Body  decided  that,  if  they  thought 
the  matter  presented  by  them  so  serious  as  to  require  investi- 
gation, they  should  reduce  their  accusations  to  definite  form, 
their  embarrassments  became  such  that  a  civilized  commu- 


121 

nity  will  treat  their  mistakes  with  appropriate  lenity.    It  is  one 
thing  to  indulge  for  four  years  in  the  almost  unlimited  license 
of  vague  accusation  permissible  in  the  columns  of  religious 
journalism,  to   call  men   Semi-Unitarians    and  Semi-Univer- 
salists,  and  the  like.     But  it  is  quite  a  different  affair  to  make 
a  specific  charge  and  to  attempt  to  prove  it.     The  editorial 
habit,  however,  could  not  be  easily  resisted.    A  Semi-Unitarian 
—  what  is  he  ?    He  must  be  a  Sabellian.    This  is  particularly 
convenient,  for  the  Professors  at  Andover  promise  to  oppose 
Sabellians,  and  we  want  in  a  friendly  way  to  establish  a  vio- 
lation of  solemn  promises  and  a  breach  of  trust.     We  will 
charge  them  then  with  holding  that  the  Trinity  is  modal. 
But  either  some  special  urgency  of  timeliness  in  pressing  the 
complaint,  or  some   occult  influence    of  superior   power,  or 
some  wholly  mysterious  cause,  required  such  extreme  rapid- 
ity of  execution,  that  these  busy,  active  men,  charged  with 
so  many  grave  responsibilities,  found  no  time  to  look  up  in 
their  Seminary  note-books  or  some  familiar  text-book  what  is 
the  exact  meaning  of  the  words  "  modal  and  monarchian," 
as  applied  to  the  Trinity.     They  were  caught  by  the  word 
"  mode."  just  as  before  they  had  been,  when  dealing  with  the 
Scriptures,  with  the  word  "perfect."     The  Creed  says  the 
Bible  is  a  perfect  rule,  the  Professors  talk  of  imperfections. 
The  Creed  condemns  Sabellians.     Sabellians  —  j)erhaps  they 
remen.bered  this  much  of  their  Seminary  lore  —  hold  to  a 
modal  Trinity.     Let  us  look  and  see  if  these  same  Professors 
who  have  so  trifled  with  Sacred   Scripture  are  not  equally 
guilty  in  respect  to  the  Holy  Trinity.     Thus  searching  they 
discovered  and  triumphantly  produced,  when  required  so  to 
do,  in  the  amended  complaint,  two  passages  from  Progressive 
Orthodoxy^  each  of  which  contains  the  word  "  mode  "  in  appli- 
cation to  a  Person  of  the  Trinity.     Here  surely  is  set  forth 
a  modal   Trinity,  and  a  modal  Trinity  is  Sabellian  !     Quid 
ohstat?     But  I  respectfully  submit,  Mr.  President  and  Gen- 
tlemen, this  question  to  your  decision,  whether  any  tyro  in 
theology  could  not  have  told  these  men  that  the  distinction 
between  a  modal  or  real  Trinity  is  conveyed  by  the  use  of 
the  phrases  mode  of  manifestation  and  mode  of  being.     He 


122 

who  affiims  the  latter  predicate  of  a  distinction  in  the  God- 
head uses  the  formula  than  which  no  other  is  more  firmly 
established  in  Christian  Theology  as  the  best  word  to  dis- 
criminate the  church  doctrine  from  every  form  of  Monarchi- 
anism.  And  this  precise  formula,  or  its  equivalent,  is  the  one 
twice  employed  by  the  writer  in  Procfressive  Orthodoxy  whose 
sentences  are  quoted  to  prove  that  I  hold  to  a  modal  Trinity. 
It  is  as  absurd  as  an  attempt  to  prove  that  President  Lincoln 
was  a  believer  in  absolute  monarchy  because  he  used  the 
word  government  when  he  spoke  at  Gettysburg  of  govern- 
ment by  the  people. 

The  phrases  I  have  used  are,  in  the  first  passage  cited, 
"the  divine  nature  as  possessed  by  the  Logos,  or  in  that  mode 
which  characterizes  his  existence."  You  have  there  all  the 
most  characteristic  forms  of  speech  by  which  the  Cliurch 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity  has  been  expressed  for  fifteen  centu- 
ries. The  Logos  possesses,  has  as  his  own,  the  divine  nature. 
He  possesses  it,  however,  in  a  peculiar  way  or  mode.  This 
mode  of  possession  characterizes  his  being.  It  is  his  personal 
property  as  the  Larger  Catechism  says,  —  his  characteristic. 
In  the  next  quotation  the  phrase  employed  is,  "a  particular 
mode  of  the  divine  being,"  not,  you  observe,  mode  of  mani- 
festation, or  relationship  ad  extra. 

I  think  I  need  not  stop  to  discuss  the  question  of  the  mean- 
ing «f  the  word  "  Person  "  as  applied  to  the  Holy  Trinity. 
When  the  article  quoted  from,  referring  to  the  three  distinc- 
tions, or  modes  of  being,  in  the  godhead,  affirms  that  "  Neither 
in  itself  is  a  Person,"  it  uses  the  word  Person  as  employed 
when  we  speak  of  the  one  absolute  Person,  God.  I  hold,  and 
the  writer  of  the  article,  judging  by  his  language,  agrees-with 
me  in  holding,  that  each  distinction  is  personal,  but  that  each 
is  a  Person,  (in  the  ordinary  sense  of  personality,  and  as  this 
idea  finds  its  supreme  realization  in  the  Infinite  and  Absolute 
One),  only  in,  with  and  through  the  other  distinctions  and  as 
possessing  the  one  divine  nature.  And  the  orthodoxy  of 
this  position  can  easily  be  established  by  the  most  approved 
writers.  A  doctrine  antagonistic  to  this,  and  at  the  same 
time  admitting  personal  distinctions,  is  sheer  Tritheism,  not 
Trinitarianism, 


123 

I  will  subjoin  a  few  quotations  from  authors  of  acknowl- 
edged standing  and  ability,  which  I  have  taken  almost  at 
random. 

Dr.  Shedd  teaches  that  the  word  Person,  as  applied  to 
the  Trinity,  designates  a  species  of  existence  "anomalous," 
"  unique,"  "  totally  .sMt  generis.'"  ^ 

Dr.  Schaff  explains  the  doctrine  established  by  the  great 
Councils  thus : 

"In  this  one  divine  essence  there  are  three  persons,  or,  to  use  a 
better  term,  hi/postases,  that  is  three  different  modes  of  subsistence 
of  the  one  same  undivided  and  indivisible  whole.  .  .  .  Here  the 
orthodox  doctrine  forsook  Sabelhanism  or  modalism  which,  it  is 
true,  made  Father,  Son,  and  Spirit  strictl}'  co-ordinate,  but  only 
as  different  denominations  and  forms  of  manifestation  of  the  one 
God."  2 

In  1819  Professor  Moses  Stuart,  in  his  "  Letters  to  the 
Rev.  William  E.  Channing,"  gave  this  representation  of  the 
views  of  Trinitarians:  ^ 

"  The  common  language  of  the  Trinitarian  Symbols  is,  '  That 
there  are  three  Persons  in  the  Godhead.'  In  your  comments  upon 
this,  3'ou  have  all  along  explained  the  wovd  person,  just  as  though 
it  were  a  given  point,  that  we  use  this  word  here,  in  its  ordinary 
acceptation  as  applied  to  men.  But  can  you  satisf}'  ^'ourself  that 
this  is  doing  us  justice?  What  fact  is  plainer  from  Church  Historj-, 
than  that  the  word  persoii  was  introduced  into  the  creeds  of  ancient 
times,  merel}'  as  a  term  which  would  express  the  disagreement  of 
Christians  in  general,  with  the  reputed  errors  of  the  Sabellians, 
and  others  of  similar  sentiments,  who  denied  the  existence  of  any 
real  distinction  in  the  Godhead,  and  asserted  that  Father,  Son, 
and  Holy  Ghost  were  merely-  attributes  of  God,  or  the  names  of 
different  wa3's  in  which  he  revealed  himself  to  mankind,  or  of 
different  relations  which  he  bore  to  them,  and  in  which  he  acted? 
The  Nicene  Fathers  meant  to  deny  the  correctness  of  this  state- 
ment, when  the}'  used  the  word  person.  They  designed  to  imply 
by  it,  that  there  was  some  real,  not  merely  nominal  distinction  in 

1  Hiatory  of  Christian  Doctrine,  T.  365. 

2  History  of  the  Christian  Church,  III.  t>75. 


124 

the  Godhead  ;  and  that  something  more  than  a  diversity'  of  relation 
or  action,  in  respect  to  us,  was  intended.  They  used  the  word 
person^  because  they  supposed  it  approximated  nearer  to  express- 
ing the  existence  of  a  real  distinction,  than  any  other  which  they 
could  choose.  Most  certainly  neither  they,  nor  any  intelligent 
Trinitarian,  could  use  this  term,  in  such  a  latitude  as  you  represent 
us  as  doing,  and  as  you  attach  to  it.  We  profess  to  use  it  merely 
from  the  poverty  of  language  ;  merely  to  designate  our  belief  of  a 
real  distinction  in  the  Godhead  ;  and  not  to  describe  independent, 
conscious  beings,  possessing  separate  and  equal  essences,  and  per- 
fections. Why  should  we  be  obliged  so  often  to  explain  ourselves 
on  this  point?  ...  I  could  heartil}-  wish,  indeed,  that  the  word 
person  never  had  come  into  the  Symbols  of  the  Churches,  because 
it  has  been  the  occasion  of  so  much  unnecessary  dispute  and 
difficulty."  1 

John  Calvin,  in  his  Institutes,  remarks  as  follows  :  — 

"  The  Latins  having  used  the  word  Persona  to  express  the  same 
thing  as  the  Greek  VTTooraoi^,  it  betra^'s  excessive  fastidiousness 
and  even  perverseness  to  quarrel  with  the  term.  The  most  literal 
translation  would  be  subsistence.  Many  have  used  substance  in 
the  same  sense.  Nor,  indeed,  was  the  use  of  the  terra  Person 
confined  to  the  Latin  Church.  For  the  Greek  Church,  in  like 
manner,  perhaps,  for  the  purpose  of  testifying  their  consent,  have 
taught  that  there  are  three  npoGcoTta  (aspects)  in  God.  All  these, 
however,  whether  Greeks  or  Latins,  though  differing  as  to  the 
words  perfectly  agreed  in  substance."  ^ 

"Where  names  have  not  been  invented  rashlj'^,  we  must  bewai'e 
lest  we  become  chargeable  with  arrogance  and  rashness  in  rejecting 
them.  I  wish,  indeed,  that  such  names  were  buried,  provided  all 
would  concur  in  the  belief  that  the  Father,  Son,  and  Spirit,  are 
one  God,  and  3'et  that  the  Son  is  not  the  Father,  nor  the  Spirit 
the  Son,  but  that  each  has  his  peculiar  subsistence  [^proprietate'] . 
I  am  not  so  minutely  precise  as  to  fight  furionsl}'  for  mere  words." 

"But,  if  we  hold,  what  has  been  already  demonstrated  from 
Scripture,  that  the  essence  of  the  one  God,  pertaining  to  the 
Father,  Son  and  Spirit,  is  simple  and  indivisible,  and  again,  that 
the  Father  differs  in  some  special  property  from  the  Son,  and  the 

1  Op.  cit  ,  pp.  21-2,3,  2d  ed.,  1819. 

2  Op.  cit.  I.  p.  148.    Calv.  Traas.  Soc.  Ed.  1845.  8  /;,.  pp.  150,  151. 


125 

Son  from  the  Spirit,  the  door  will  be  shut  against  Arius  and  Sabel- 
Hlis,  as  well  as  the  otiier  ancient  authof's  of  error."  ^ 

Particular  8.  Perhaps  I  need  do  no  more  than  repeat  my 
previous  reply : 

"  The  accusation  is  that  I  hold  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to  be 
'  chiefly  confined  to  the  sphere  of  historic  Christianity  ; '  or,  as 
more  definitely  specified  by  the  citation,  with  its  context,  that  the 
'  efficacious,'  regenerating,  saving  work  of  the  Spirit  is  thus  '  chief- 
ly confined.'  The  opposite  i)roposition  would  be  that  this  work  is 
'  chiefly  confined  to  '  paganism,  or  Judaism,  or  both.  There  can 
be  no  doubt  which  of  these  propositions  is  more  accordant  with  the 
Creed,  with  orthodoxy,  or  with  '  consistent '  Calvinism  as  explained 
in  the  Creed.  Substituting  the  words  '  conducted  within  '  for 
'  confined  to,'  and  not  doubting  a  universal  Avork  of  the  Spirit,  I 
should  admit  the  accusation." 

I  will  only  add  that  the  subject  is  discussed  in  Progressive 
Orthodoxy  in  the  light  of  history,  observation  and  missionary 
experience  —  that  is,  as  a  question  of  fact.  So  far  as  we  have 
evidence,  or  judged  by  its  fruits,  Christianity  alone  offers  the 
requisite  material  in  motive  for  the  transformation  of  man- 
kind into  a  spiritual  temple  and  kingdom  of  God. 

I  think  that  this  is  implied  in  Pentecost,  that  it  is  the 
teaching  of  John  vii.  39,  and  of  much  Scriptural  authority 
besides.  "  Only  when  Jesus  was  glorified,"  is  Dr.  Milligan's 
comment  on  the  passage  in  John's  Gospel  (Dr.  Schaff's  Popu- 
lar Commentary)^  .  .  "  would  men  receive  that  spiritual 
power  which  is  the  condition  of  all  spiritual  life." 

Particular  9.  I  reafi&rm  but  do  not  find  occasion  to  ex- 
pand my  previous  answer,  save  to  add  a  few  references  to 
passages  on  pp.  56,  57,  60,  and  61,  where  the  sinner's  condem- 
nation under  law  is  abundantly  recognized. 

Particular  10.  I  repeat  my  former  reply,  and  refer  also  to 
my  acceptance  of  the  statement  in  the  Creed  that  the  Scrip- 
tures are  the  "  only  perfect  rule  of  faith  and  practice."  A 
reasonable  being  must  be  guided  by  reason,  but  it  is  the  dic- 
tate of  reason  to  submit  to  the  word  and  authority  of  God. 

1  76.  p.  173. 


126 

I  believe,  however,  that  reason  is  at  the  bottom  of  all  things, 
the  reason  of  the  universal  Creator  and  Redeemer.  There- 
fore human  reason  may  explore  and  question  and  hope  to 
find  more  and  more  fully  the  truth.  If  the  charge  intends  — 
which  I  do  not  allege  —  to  cast  a  slur  upon  reason  in  matters 
of  faith,  I  beg  leave  to  refer  to  the  nobler  maxims  of  the  leader 
of  the  party  which  had  most  to  do  with  shaping  the  Semi- 
nary Creed.  I  quote  from  Dr.  Park's  Memoir  of  Samuel 
Hopkins. 

"  Our  author's  strength  of  character  induced  him  to  give  an 
unusual  prominence  to  the  more  difficult  parts  of  theology,  and 
thus  it  shaped  his  entire  system.     Whether  his   speculations   be 
true  or  false,  he  has  done  a  great  work  in  promoting  manly  discus- 
sion, in  convincing  his  readers  that  piety  is  something  more  tlian 
a  blind  sehtimentalism,  and  that  theology  is  something  better  than 
a  superstitious  faith.     He  has  encouraged  men  to  examine  intricate 
theories,  and  the  examination  has  saved  them   from  scepticism. 
Hundreds  have  been  repulsed,  into  infidelity,  by  the  fear  of  good 
men    to   encounter   philosophical    objections.      Hopkins    was   too 
strong  for  such  fears.     He  had  that  sterling  common  sense  which 
loves  to  grapple  with  important  truths,  cost  what  they  may  of  toil. 
The  great  problem  of  the  existence  of  sin  early  awakened  his  curi- 
osity, and  moved  the  depths  of  his  heart.     A  weaker  man  would 
have  shrunk  from  the  investigation  of  such  a  theme.     But  he  was 
ready  to  defend  all  parts  of  wliat  he  loved  to  call  '  a  consistent 
Calvinism.'     His  readiness  to  encounter  the  hardest  subjects  and 
the  stui-diest  opponents,  was  foretokened  by  one  of  his  early  corpo- 
real feats.     It  is  reported  that  an  insane  man,  stalwart  and  furious, 
was  once  escaping  from  his  keepers  with  fearful  speed;  but  the 
young  divine  intercepted  him,  and  hekl  him  fast  until  the  maniac 
gave  up,  and  cried,  '  Hopkins,  you  are  my  master.' 

'■  Throughout  the  unpublished  and  published  writings  of  Hopkins, 
there  breathes  a  masculine  spirit,  which  refuses  to  be  satisfied  by 
assertion  instead  of  argument,  and  insists  on  the  legitimate  use  of 
the  faculties  which  God  has  given  us.  At  the  age  of  sixty-five,  he 
writes  to  Dr.  Hart :  '  I  ask  what  faith  I  shall  have  in  the  power 
of  God,  or  what  belief  of  any  revealed  truth,  if  I  do  not  so  far 
trust  to  my  own  understanding,  as  to  think  and  be  confident  that  I 
do  understand  that  God  has  revealed  certain  truths,  and  what  they 


127 

are.'  In  his  thirty-fifth  year,  Hopkins  seized  at  what  he  deemed  a 
tacit  concession  of  Dr.  Mayhew,  that  Arininianism  could  not  be 
sustained  by  reason.  He  writes  to  Bellamy  :  '  I  think  he  [iVIa}'- 
hew]  says  that  which  ma}-  be  fiiirly  construed  as  a  crying  down 
of  reason,  under  the  name  of  metaphysical,  or  some  epithet  tanta- 
mount." Hopkins  was  too  vigorous  to  leave  such  a  concession 
unnoticed.  He  turns  the  tables  on  his  Arminian  opposers,  and 
the}'  censure  him  for  his  argumentative  style,  —  the  very  thing  for 
which  they  have  been  censured,  again  and  again,  by  their  antago- 
nists. Our  stout  champion  says,  that  '  Pelagians  and  Arminians 
have  been,  in  too  man}'  instances,  treated  so  by  their  opponents, 
the  professed  Calvinists.  The  former  have  gloried  in  their  reason- 
ing against  the  latter,  as  unanswerable  demonstration.  The  latter, 
instead  of  detecting  the  weakness,  fallacy,  and  absurdity  of  the 
reasoning  of  the  former,  and  maintaining  their  cause  on  this 
ground,  as  well  they  might,  have  endeavored  to  defend  themselves 
from  this  weapon  by  bringing  it  into  disgrace,  and  rejecting  it 
under  the  name  of  carnal,  unsanctified  reason,  etc.  This  has  been 
so  far  from  humbling  or  giving  them  the  least  conviction  of  their 
errors,  that  it  has  had  a  contrary  effect  to  a  very  great  and  sensible 
degree.  And  no  wonder ;  for  this  was  the  direct  tendency  of  it, 
as  it  is  an  implicit  confession  that  they  felt  themselves  worsted  at 
reasoning.'  "  ^ 

Particular  11.  It  is  evident  from  a  few  extracts  from  Pro- 
gressive Orthodoxy  to  which  I  will  immediately  call  attention 
that  our  views  upon  the  subject  here  introduced  have  not 
been  presented  in  the  unguarded  way  which  is  here  assumed 
to  be  true.  What  I  am  to  read  is  a  caveat  to  which  marked 
prominence  is  given  in  the  book  against  such  a  misrepresen- 
tation.    In  the  "  Introduction  "  pains  was  taken  to  say  : 

"Problems  are  above  the  horizon  which  are  not  yet  clearly 
within  the  field  of  vision.  Even-  their  provisional  and  relative 
solution  is  at  present  impracticable.  Too  early  an  attempt  to 
define  and  systematize  is  likely  to  cramp  and  repress  inquiry,  and 
to  promote  a  dogmatic  self-satisfaction  which  is  a  deadly  foe  to 
progress.  The  aim,  accordingly,  of  the  writers  of  these  papers  has 
been  to  keep  clearly  within  the  range  of  what  is  immediately 
necessary  and  practical.     For  the  most    part,  a    single    line    of 

1  The  works  of  Samuel  Hopkins,  I.  pp.  17(J-178. 


128 

inquiry  has  been  followed,  under  the  guidance  of  a  central  and 
vital  principle  of  Christianity,  narael}',  the  realitj'  of  Christ's  per- 
sonal relation  to  the  human  race  as  a  whole  and  to  ever}'  menaber 
of  it,  —  the  principle  of  the  universality  of  Christianit}'. 

"This  principle  has  been  rapidl}'  gaining  of  late  in  its  power 
over  men's  thoughts  and  lives.  It  is  involved  in  the  church  doc- 
trine of  the  constitution  of  Christ's  person.  It  is  a  necessary 
implication  of  our  fathers'  faith  in  the  extent  and  intent  of  the 
Atonement.  It  is  an  indisputable  teaching  of  sacred  Scripture. 
It  lies  at  the  heart  of  all  that  is  most  heroic  and  self-sacrificing  in 
the  Christian  life  of  our  centur3^  We  have  sought  to  applj'  this 
principle  to  the  solution  of  questions  which  are  now  more  than 
ever  before  engaging  the  attention  of  serious  and  devout  minds. 
We  have  endeavored  to  follow  its  guidance  faithfull}'  and  loyall}', 
and  whithersoever  it  might  lead.  We  have  trusted  it  whollj-  and 
practically.  By  the  publication  of  this  volume  we  submit  our 
work  to  the  judgment  of  a  wider  public.  If  we  have  an}' where 
overestimated  or  underestimated  the  validity  and  value  of  our 
guiding  principle,  we  hope  that  this  will  be  pointed  out.  Or  if  we 
have  lost  sight  of  any  qualifying  or  limiting  truth,  we  desire  that 
this  may  be  shown.  On  the  other  hand,  if  we  have  been  true  to  a 
great  and  cardinal  doctrine  of  our  holy  religion,  and  have  devel- 
oped its  necessar}'  implications  and  consequences,  we  ask  that 
any  further  discussion  of  these  conclusions  should  recognize  their 
co7inection  with  the  principle  from  lohich  they  are  derived^  and  their 
legitimacy,  unless  this  principle  is  itself  to  be  abandoned."  ^ 

On  page  39  "  a  better  understanding  of  the  revealed  central 
position  of  Christ  in  the  universe,  and  of  the  absoluteness 
of  Christianit}'',"  is  claimed  as  a  characteristic  of  the  "  New 
Theology."  The  presentation  of  the  theory  of  future  pro- 
bation is  prefaced  by  these  remarks  : 

"At  this  point  the  discussion  might  terminate.  The  principle 
of  judgment  in  accordance  with  which  the  destinies  of  men  are 
determined  we  believe  to  be  that  which  has  now  been  defined.  .  .  . 
We  could  stop  here,  but  for  a  related  question  which  has  long  per- 
plexed and  disturbed  believers.  It  is  a  question  as  to  the  judg- 
ment and  the  destiny  of  those  to  whom  the  gospel  is  not  made 

1  Prog.  Orth.,  pp.  3,  4.(^f.  pp.  13,  14,  16. 


129 

known  while  they  are  in  the  body.  We  must  consider  the  discus- 
sion, then,  in  order  to  consider,  as  it  may  seem  to  deserve,  this 
ditlieult  question.  It  is,  in  our  opinion,  to  be  looked  on  as  an  ap- 
pended inquiry,  rather  than  as  an  essential  question  for  theolog}'. 
Still  it  is  not  wanting  either  in  practical  or  speculative  importance, 
and,  at  an}-  rate,  is  at  present  much  in  dispute. 

"  B.    A  Related  Questiox. 

"  What  is  the  fate  of  those  millions  to  whom  Christ  is  not  made 
known  in  this  life,  and  of  those  generations  who  lived  before  the 
advent  of  Christ? 

"This  may,  perhaps,  be  onlj'  a  temporar}-  question.  The  time 
ma}'  come,  we  think  will  come,  when  all  will  hear  the  messages  of 
the  gospel  during  the  earthly  lifetime,  and  will  know  the  gospel  so 
thoroughh'  that  knowledge  and  corresponding  opportunity'  will  be 
decisive.  Then  there  will  be  less  occasion  for  perplexit}',  as  there 
will  be  no  apparent  exclusion  from  those  opportunities  which  at 
present  are  given  to  only  part  of  the  great  human  famih'. 

''  The  question  we  have  raised  is  not  new.  Nor  are  any  of  the 
proposed  answers  new,  although  some  of  the  reasoning  is  the  out- 
come of  a  more  profound  thought  of  the  gospel  than  has  been 
gained  in  preceding  periods.  An  instructive  lesson  for  impress- 
ing the  difficulty  of  our  inquir}'  is  a  history  of  the  various  opinions 
which  have  been  held  during  the  Christian  centuries  by  honored 
leaders  and  revered  saints  ;  such  an  historical  sketch,  for  example, 
as  Dean  Plumptre  gives  in  his  recent  book  entitled,  'The  Spirits 
in  Prison.'  No  answer  which  has  yet  been  given  is  entirely  free 
from  objections.  Every  one,  unless  he  declines  to  accept  any  solu- 
tion, has  an  alternative  before  him,  and  must  rest  in  that  conclu- 
sion which  seems  to  him  most  nearl}-  in  accordance  with  the  large 
meaning  of  the  gospel,  and  which  is  exposed  to  the  fewest  serious 
objections.  Certainl}-.  any  one  should  be  slow  to  condemn  those 
whose  opinions  on  this  vexed  subject  do  not  agree  with  his  own 
hypothesis.  There  is  no  explicit  revelation  as  to  the  destin}'  of 
those  who  on  earth  have  had  no  knowledge  of  Christ.  Therefore 
any  inference  that  is  drawn  from  the  doctrines  of  the  gospel,  and 
from  the  interpretation  of  incidental  allusions  of  Scripture,  must 
be  held  with  confession  of  some  remaining  ignorance  on  the  part 
of  the  reasoner.  Tlie  theorj-  which  we  shall  advance  presently  is 
otfered  under  these  conditions." 


130 

It  is  evident  from  these  quotations  that  in  our  reply  we 
might  have  met  this  entire  charge  by  a  simple  and  sheer 
denial.  It  is  patent,  by  the  book,  that  we  do  not,  in  the 
unqualified  manner  of  the  charge,  make  any  opinion  we  en- 
tertain respecting  future  probation  a  central  doctrine.  In 
the  strictest  sense  we  do  not  treat  it  as  a  doctrine  at  all, 
but  only  as  an  inference  from  a  doctrine  or  fundamental 
principle. 

I  do  not  wish,  however,  to  avail  myself  of  any  refinements 
at  this  point.  I  claim  full  liberty  under  the  Creed  to  hold  in 
this  matter  whatever  a  true  interpretation  of  Scripture,  and 
of  the  "  revelation  which  God  constantly  makes  of  Himself 
in  his  works  of  creation,  providence  and  redemption,"  may 
make  probable,  and  with  a  degree  of  faith  as  exactly  propor- 
tionate to  available  evidence  as  I  can  measure ;  nay,  I  do  not 
think  I  shall  commit  any  sin  against  reason  and  Scripture 
and  the  God  who  speaks  in  Scripture  and  reason,  nor  violate 
any  obligation  under  the  Creed,  if  I  allow  myself  to  follow 
with  a  perfect  trust  wherever  with  the  heart  as  well  as  with 
the  head  I  can  discover  any  traces  of  his  holy  and  reconciling 

love. 

I  have  not  therefore  in  my  reply  availed  myself  of  the 
opportunity  given  by  the  extravagance  of  the  accusation  to 
make  a  square  denial  of  it.     I  have  said  :  "  In  this  unqualified 
form  I  do  not  admit  that  I  hold,  maintain  and  inculcate  '  that 
there  is  and  will  be  probation  after  death  for  all  men  who  do 
not  decisively  reject  Christ  during  the  earthly  life ; '  and  that 
this  should  be  emphasized,  made  influential,  and  even  central 
in  systematic  theology."     I  have  added  :  "  God  as  revealed  in 
Christ  is  to  me  centi'al  in  theology.     Whatever  encourages 
hope  that  all  men  will  have  opportunity  to  be  influenced  by 
the  motive  of  an  offered  Saviour  is  chiefly  valuable  in  theol- 
ogy as  a  reflection  of  the  character  of  God." 

A  theologian's  duty,  as  well  as  a  believer's,  and  indeed 
every  man's,  is  primarily  to  God.  "  What  He  is  in  his  char- 
acter and  in  his  will  concerning  us,  is  the  great,  and  all- 
absorbing  question.  This  is  emphatically  a  fundamental 
principle  of  "  consistent  Calvinism."    The  question  about  the 


131 

heathen  has  a  deep  interest  to  us  because  they  are  men  ; 
a  deeper  interest  because  they  are  men  for  whom  Christ  died, 
each  and  every  one  ;  tlie  deepest  interest  because  they  are 
children  of  the  same  God  on  whom  all  our  personal  hopes 
depend  and  in  whom  all  our  lives  are  lived.  A  question  of 
this  character  is  a  fundamental  question.  Therefore  when  any 
inquiry  arises  which  in  the  smallest  degree  whatsoever  in- 
volves His  character,  I  will  not  protect  myself  by  any  man's 
want  of  skill  in  attacking  me.  So  far  as  the  question  of  the 
heathen  comes  into  the  sphere  of  the  ethical  character  of 
God  and  just  so  far  as  it  is  within  even  the  faintest  circles  of 
light  which  we  may  discern  if  we  will,  it  is  a  part  of  the  one 
and  the  only  central  and  fundamental  question  for  every 
man  :  What  is  God  ?  And  I  beg  leave  to  emphasize  that 
this  is  the  real  central  question  we  have  discussed  in  Pro- 
gressive  Orthodoxy,  and  not  the  .mere  issue  about  Probation. 

That  there  ma}^  be  no  ambiguity  as  to  my  position  because, 
on  a  question  so  vital,  my  assailants  have  blundered,  I  deny 
even  the  last  part  of  this  accusation  with  this  measura  of 
qualification. 

The  first  part  I  deny,  in  my  answer,  by  calling  attention  to  . 
the  fact  that  what  I  hold  is  an  inference  from  what  appears 
to  be  evident,  and  is  a  reasonable  inference,  and  that  it  seems 
to  be  implied  in  the  universality  of  Christ's  Person,  Atonement 
and  Judgment.  This  is  a  suggestion  by  example  of  the 
grounds  of  hope,  and  the  method  of  it.  I  then  deny  that 
such  an  inference  is  inconsistent  with  any  thing  in  the  Creed. 
Upon  this  basis  there  arise  two  questions.  First,  have  the 
complainants  shown  that  we  "  hold,  maintain  and  inculcate  " 
any  thing  more  or  other  than  what  is  here  conceded  ?  No 
evidence  to  this  effect  has  been  adduced,  nor  is  there  any. 

Second.  Is  the  drawing  and  accepting  this  inference  such 
a  departure  from  the  Creed  as  brings  me  into  disharmony 
with  it,  or  into  antagonism  to  it  in  my  official  service? 

It  devolves  upon  the  complainants  to  prove  such  dishar- 
mony or  antagonism.  They  must  show,  if  they  are  to  make 
out  their  case,  that  the  inference  in  question  is  necessarily 
hostile  to  the  Creed,  that  I  cannot  entertain  it  without  being 


132 

hostile  to  the  same,  that  I  cannot  receive  it  without  violat- 
ing my  solemn  promise  "  to  maintain  and  inculcate  the  Chris- 
tian faith  as  expressed  in  the  Creed,  ...  so  far  as  appertains 
to  my  office,  according  to  the  best  light  God  shall  give  me, 
and  in  opposition  to  "  various  errors. 

In  reviewing  the  effort  to  establish  such  antagonism  I  have 
a  right  to  demand  from  the  complainants  entire  definiteness 
of  statement,  and  conclusiveness  of  argument.  They  must 
show  that  I  actually  take  positions  in  what  they  prove,  or  in 
what  I  admit,  that  I  hold,  which  contravene  my  official  obli- 
gations under  the  Creed  and  Statutes. 

Under  the  Creed.  The  question  is  not  one  of  contrariety  to 
opinions  commonly  held  when  the  Seminary  was  founded,  nor 
even  to  opinions  held  by  the  Founders,  but  simply  of  antagon- 
ism to  what  they  have  prescribed  in  their  Statutes.  Professor 
Park  has  said  that  the  Professors  at  Andover  "are  now  under 
the  safeguard  of  that  Creed.  They  cannot  be  required  to  be- 
lieve more  than  is  involved  or  implied  in  it."  This  is  a  car- 
dinal principle.  Not  the  opinions  of  the  Founders,  but  what 
they  have  prescribed  or  implied  in  their  Statutes,  is  the  stand- 
ard by  which  the  charge  of  "heterodoxy"  is  to  be  tested." 
As  I  have  previously  stated  I  do  not  hereby  waive  or  dis- 
credit any  claim  that  may  arise  from  a  larger  interpretation 
of  the  word  heterodoxy,  I  simply  disregard  it  for  the  present 
discussion,  meeting  my  opponents  on  their  chosen  ground. 

Coming  now  to  the  accusation  I  notice  (1)  that  the  Creed 
contains  no  explicit  declaration  upon  the  question  at  issue. 

It  says  nothing  whatever  about  the  condition  of  men  who 
die  without  opportunity  to  hear  the  gospel,  or  to  accept  or 
reject  an  offered  Saviour,  in  the  intermediate  state  between 
death  and  judgment.  All  that  it  affirms  about  men  who  do 
not  die  in  faith  is  contained  in  these  words:  "but  that  the 
wicked  will  awake  to  shame  and  everlasting  contempt  and 
with  devils  be  plunged  into  the  lake  that  burneth  with  fire 
and  brimstone  forever  and  ever." 

This  is  Biblical  phraseology.  It  is  the  only  instance  in  the 
entire  Creed  (with  one  possible  exception  which  would  con- 
firm my  argument)  in  which  such  a  resort  is  made.     Every- 


133 

where  else  the  framers  use  their  own  terms,  or  the  traditional 
language  of  the  Catechism.  An  awe  seems  to  come  over 
them  when  they  come  to  the  awful  destiny  of  incorrigible 
sinners.  They  will  prescribe  nothing  themselves.  Whatever 
their  own  interpretations  of  Scripture  they  will  not  introduce 
them  into  a  Creed  which  they  intend  shall  not  be  altered, 
and  which  they  hope  will  endure  till  the  end  shall  come.  It 
probably  never  occurred  to  them  that  men  would  arise  who 
would  reject  their  doctrines  as  antiquated,  and  then  claim  that 
it  is  a  breach  of  trust  to  follow  the  Scripture  which  they  in- 
serted in  the  Creed  rather  than  to  follow  their  opinions  which 
they  did  not  insert.  I  repeat :  they  simply  on  a  subject  so 
grave  and  terrible,  use  the  phraseology  of  the  Bible.  Unin- 
terpreted by  them,  left  in  its  original  form,  it  has  the  mean- 
ing of  Scripture,  as  they  quote  it,  and  this  meaning  only. 

I  claim  that  this  disposes  conclusively,  finally,  of  the  whole 
question.  I  have  no  right,  you  have  no  right,  to  add  to  this 
Creed ;  to  put  an  interpretation  on  this  Scriptural  language 
other  than  the  language  which  is  cited  bears,  to  give  it  a 
meaning  which  they  did  not  prescribe,  and  when  they  chose 
to  leave  it  uninterpreted. 

I  know  of  but  one  qualification.  It  may.be  that  a  correct 
interpretation  of  the  Hebrew  original,  whose  translation  in 
King  James's  version  the  Founders  use,  would  make  the 
passage  less  relevant  than  they  supposed.  It  would  not  of 
course  be  fair  to  the  Founders  for  any  one  to  take  an  advan- 
tage of  this  —  if  such  a  supposition  may  be  pardoned.  For  it 
obviously  was  the  intention  of  the  P^ounders  to  introduce 
into  their  Creed  an  article  upon  the  final  state  of  the  wicked- 
They  used  for  this  purpose  a  passage  about  whose  meaning 
they  supposed  there  was  no  reasonable  doubt.  It  is  a  text 
which  in  its  phraseology  as  they  accepted  it  plainly  refers  to 
the  final  resurrection.  It  was  commonly  so  understood  in 
their  time,  and  by  the  best  commentators  with  whom  they 
were  familiar.  They  would  not  have  quoted  it,  if  they  had 
supposed  it  possible  that  it  could  refer  to  a  revival  of  the 
Jewish  nation  under  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  or  any  thing  in 
the  history  of  the  Hebrews. 


134 

Beyond  this  they  cannot  go.  They  quoted  what  they  un- 
derstood to  be  plainly  an  eschatological  passage,  and  left  it 
wholly  uninterpreted.  No  man  has  a  right  to  go  beyond  this 
clear  intent.  All  the  language  they  used,  as  they  use  it, 
refers  to  the  final  resurrection  and  judgment. 

This  appears  from  an  examination  of  it.  "  The  wicked  "  — 
who  are  they?  The  "  incorrigibly  wicked  at  death,"  it  has 
been  argued.  This  is  an  addition.  Besides,  who  are  the 
incorrigibly  wicked  "  at  death "  ?  The  article  speaks  of 
the  resurrection  and  final  judgment.  "The  wicked"  is 
the  Founders'  phrase,  and  they  add  no  comment.  It  is  a 
Biblical  phrase.  In  the  New  Testament  (King  James's  ver- 
sion), it  is  used  but  once  with  an  eschatological  reference. 
"  So  shall  it  be  at  the  end  of  the  world :  the  angels  shall 
come  forth  and  sever  the  wicked  from  among  the  just." 
^''  At  the  end  of  the  world.''''  Tliis  is  the  point  of  view  of  the 
article  in  the  Creed,  and  to  select  any  other  is  to  read  into 
the  article  what  this  phrase  does  not  require,  and  what  the 
context  excludes.  The  article  continues:  "  tlie  wicked  will 
awake  to  shame  and  everlasting  contempt,"  quoting  the  lan- 
guage of  the  prophet  Daniel,  which  was  understood  to  refer 
to  the  general  resurrection  at  the  end  of  the  world,  "  and 
with  devils  be  plunged  into  the  lake  that  burneth  with 
fire  and  brimstone  for  ever  and  ever,"  employing  still  Bibli- 
cal language  which  describes  what  follows  upon  the  final 
judgment. 1  There  is  in  all  this  no  allusion  and  no  hint  of 
an  allusion  to  what  ensues  at  death  in  the  case  of  men  who 
have  not  heard  the  Gospel,  nor  had  opportunity  to  learn  of  a 
Saviour.  Not  a  syllable.  All  reference  to  such  a  subject 
here  is  something  added  to  the  Creed,  and  is  wholly  without 
warrant  or  authority. 

The  case  cannot  be  made  stronger,  but  it  is  noteworthy 
that,  as  we  should  expect,  such  a  necessary  construction  of 
the  language  harmonizes  with  the  context. 

The  state  of  believers  is  considered  at  tliree  stages,  —  in 
this  life,  at  death,  and  at  the  resurrection.  The  state  of  un- 
believers  is  considered  at  but  one,  —  the  final  outcome  of 

Rev.  xxi.  8  ;  and  pcrliaps  Matt.  xxv.  4. 


135 

their  wickedness.  The  Shorter  Catechism  which  is  here 
followed  so  closely  says  nothing  about  the  destiny  of  the 
wicked.  The  fraraers  of  the  Creed  were  led  by  it  through 
the  three  stages  in  the  history  of  believers.  They  added 
something  as  to  the  final  state  of  unbelievers.  They  had 
been  brought  to  the  final  state  of  the  righteous.  They  put 
in  sharp  contrast  with  this,  and  in  Biblical  and  in  part  figu- 
rative language,  the  final  state  of  the  wicked.  No  one  can 
rightfully  add  to  their  work  as  a  condition  of  their  trust. 

2.  The  Creed  contains  no  implicit  declaration  adverse  to  the 
tenet  that  those  who  have  had  no  opportunity  to  learn  of  a 
Saviour  in  this  life  may  he  granted  such  opportunity  in  the 
other  life. 

It  is  contended  that  such  an  adverse  conclusion  may  be 
deduced  from  the  statement  that  "  they  who  are  effectually 
called  do  in  this  life  partake  of  justification,  adoption,  and 
sanctification,  and  the  several  benefits  which  do  either 
accompany  or  flow  from  them."  This  language,  it  is  argued, 
implies  that  all  who  are  saved  are  saved  in  this  life.  Conse- 
quently none  can  be  supposed  to  have  an  opportunity  of 
salvation  beyond  this  life. 

This  is  an  attempt  to  find  in  the  Creed  a  doctrine  which 
is  not  taught  in  the  place  where  it  properly  belongs.  In  an 
instrument  so  carefully  drawn  as  the  Creed,  so  well  arranged, 
so  studiously  elaborated,  such  an  endeavor  is  open  to  suspi- 
cion. The  presumptions  are  against  an  incidental  deliver- 
ance upon  a  question  which,  if  the  intention  had  been  to 
pronounce  upon  it  at  all,  would  have  certainlj^  received  the 
same  pains-taking  treatment  which  is  everywhere  else 
evinced.  The  character  of  the  men  who  made  the  Creed 
and  the  character  of  the  document  are  strongly  adverse  to 
the  supposition  that  there  was  any  purpose  in  this  article  to 
settle  an  important  doctrine  of  eschatology.  Such  indirec- 
tion is  not  the  method  of  the  Creed,  nor  is  it  the  method  of 
tlie  men  who  composed  it,  nor  of  the  theology  of  their  time. 
In  general,  an  incidental  clause  found  in  an  article  concern- 
ing one  doctrine,  ought  to  be  inevitable  and  irresistible  in 
its  inference  in  order  to  make  it  equivalent  to  a  direct  state- 


136 

ment  which  is  wholly  absent  when  and  where  it  properly 
belonsfs. 

It  is  further  to  be  noticed  that  the  object  of  the  article  cited  is 
not  to  affirm,  nor  does  it  assert,  that  the  effectually  called  are 
called  in  this  life.  This  may  be  implied,  but  the  purpose  of 
the  article  is  to  state  that  certain  blessings  come  in  this  life 
to  the  effectually  called.  The  obvious  purpose  of  the  article 
therefore  is  not  friendly  to  the  supposition  that  it  was  intended 
to  decide  a  wholly  different  question,  namely  whether  some 
persons  may  be  effectually  called  and  saved  in  another  life. 

This  brings  to  view  another  difficulty.  The  article  before 
us  does  not  deal  with  the  number  of  the  elect,  or  make  any 
statement  or  involve  any  implication  on  this  subject.  Its 
purpose  is  not  to  define  or  determine  who  are  effectually 
called,  but  simply  to  assure  believers  that  the  gospel  has  for 
them  great  and  heavenly  blessings  which  they  niay  partake 
of  in  -this  life  of  conflict  and  toil.  It  is  forcing  language 
written  for  such  a  use  to  make  it  serve  as  the  statement  of  a 
dogma  respecting  the  question  what  opportunities  may  exist 
for  the  implantation  and  beginning  of  saving  faith.  The 
article  is  written  for  Christian  believers.  It  is  taken  directly 
from  the  Shorter  Catechism.  It  deals  solely  with  believers, 
and  presupposes  their  existence.  The  heathen  are  no  more 
within  its  view  than  the  angels.  It  is  a  violation  of  the  ac- 
cepted  canons  of  interpretation  to  make  it  cover  and  decide 
questions  of  a  different  order,  relating  to  a  different  class. 

I  think  these  considerations  are  sufficient  of  themselves  to 
warrant  the  rejection  of  this  method  of  proof.  We  are  not, 
however,  merely  warranted  in  thus  discarding  it.  A  careful 
and  thorough  examination  of  the  article  leads  to  conclusions 
which  absolutely  require  such  a  result.  For  it  becomes  evi- 
dent that  the  interpretation  I  am  opposing  not  merely  forces 
the  meaning  of  the  article  but  makes  it  contradictory  to  the 
Standards  of  which  its  original  formed  a  part,  and  puts  it  out 
of  harmony  with  the  Creed  to  which  it  has  been  transferred. 

The  article,  as  I  have  stated,  is  simply  appropriated  from 
the  Shorter  Catechism.  Unless  there  is  some  decisive  reason 
to  the  contrary  it    must    bear  the    meaning   as    transferred 


137 

wliich  it  has  in  its  original  appearance.  An}^  interpretation 
which  it  is  impossible  to  give  to  it  as  first  written  certainly 
cannot  be  necessary  when  it  is  simply  repeated ;  and  when, 
in  addition,  we  find  that  the  same  impossibility  also  appears 
in  its  new  connection,  we  are  compelled  wholly  to  reject  such 
an  explanation. 

It  will  perhaps  make  my  argument  more  clear  if  I  first 
reduce  the  reasoning  I  am  opposing  to  the  syllogistic  form, 
and  then  show  where  it  fails.     It  may  be  stated  thus  : 

The  effectually  called  are  the  elect. 

The  effectually  called  receive  salvation  in  this  life. 

Therefore  the  elect  receive  salvation  in  this  life. 

The  elect  are  saved  in  this  life. 

None  but  the  elect  are  saved. 

Therefore  none  are  saved  except  in  this  life. 

This  reasoning  confuses  certain  specified  blessings  of  sal- 
vation with  the  beginning  or  principle  of  salvation.  But 
letting  this  pass  it  is  valid  only  in  case  the  minor  premise 
of  the  first  syllogism  must  mean :  All  the  effectually  called 
receive  salvation  in  this  life.  But  this  indispensable  exten- 
sion of  the  minor  premise  is  impossible  on  any  just  principles 
of  interpretation  of  either  the  Catechism  or  the  Creed,  and 
therefore  the  reasoning  breaks  down.  For  if  there  may  be 
some  who  are  effectually  called,  and  therefore  are  of  the  elect 
and  therefore  will  be  saved,  who  do  not  receive  this  salvation 
here  they  must  be  saved  elsewhere ;  which  is  precisely  the 
hope  of  Progressive  Orthodoxy. 

The  Westminster  Standards  affirm  that  "elect  infants, 
dying  in  infancy,  are  regenerated  and  saved  by  Christ  through 
the  Spirit,  who  worketh  when,  where,  and  how  He  pleaseth. 
So  also-  are  all  other  elect  persons  who  are  incapable  of  being 
outwardly  called  by  the  ministry  of  the  word." 

Now  if  the  "effectually  called,"  in  the  article  quoted  from 
the  Catechism  and  adopted  into  the  Creed,  include  all  the 
elect,  then  we  must  hold  that  elect  infants  receive  in  this 
life  the    blessings  which  are  enumerated,  and  so  also  must 


138 

all  other  elect  persons  who  are  incapable  of  hearing  the 
gospel.  What  now  are  these"  blessings  ?  The  article  before 
us  enumerates  them  in  part.  Thej  are  "justification,  adop- 
tion, and  sanctification  and  the  several  benefits  which  do 
either  accompany  or  flow  from  them."  In  the  Shorter  Cat- 
echism these  "benefits"  are  explained  to  be  "assurance  of 
God's  love,  joy  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  increase  of  grace  and 
perseverance  therein  to  the  end." 

If,  then,  the  effectually  called  referred  to  in  the  article 
under  consideration  embrace  all  the  elect,  and,  as  is  ex- 
pressly stated,  there  are  "  elect  infants  "  and  elect  "  other  per- 
sons "  who  never  are  "  outwardly  called  by  the  ministry  of  the 
word,"  it  follows  that  all  these  infants  who  die  in  infancv, 
and  these  other  persons  who  never  hear  the  gospel,  receive 
in  this  life  the  blessings  included  in  justification,  adoption 
and  sanctification,  and  the  other  benefits  described  ;  —  that  is, 
they  experience  in  this  life  'conviction  of  sin,  enlightenment  in 
the  knowledge  of  Christ,  renewal  of  will,  the  Spirit's  persua- 
sion and  power  to  embrace  Jesus  Christ  freely  offered  in  the 
gospel,  pardon  and  acceptance  as  righteous  in  God's  sio-ht, 
the  imputation  of  Christ's  righteousness  which  is  received 
by  faith  alone,  reception  into  the  number  and  admission  to 
all  the  privileges  of  the  sons  of  God,  ability  more  and  more 
to  die  unto  sin  and  live  unto  righteousness,  assurance  of 
God's  love,  peace  of  conscience,  joy  in  the  Holy  Ghost, 
increase  of  grace  and  perseverance  therein  to  the  end.' 
Blessed  infants!  But  who  in  his  senses  can  think  of  puttino- 
an  interpretation  on  this  article  which  commits  it  to  such 
absurdities  ? 

We  are  still  however  far  from  being  through  with  these 
consequences.  For  there  is  another  alternative.  If  the 
"effectually  called  "  in  the  article  before  us  are  all  the  elect, 
and  all  the  elect  consequently  receive  all  these  blessings  in 
this  life,  it  follows  that  only  those  are  effectually  called  to 
whom  such  a  description  applies.  Now  it  is  impossible  to 
apply  it  to  the  experience  of  infants  and  persons  who  know 
nothing  of  Christ.  Hence  we  must  conclude  that  there  are 
no  "  elect  infants,"  and  no   "  other  elect   persons "   beyond 


139 

the  reach  of  the  Christian  ministry  —  not  a  soul  imprisoned 
here  from  the  light  which  is  so  pleasant  and  the  truth  which 
is  life,  among  the  elect ;  not  a  pagan  child  or  woman  or  man, 
—  not  one  elected  ;  and  therefore  all  are  forever  lost ! 

The  simple  truth  is,  as  I  have  said,  that  the  Catechism 
was  written  for  believers  and  their  children,  for  Christian  fam- 
ilies and  peoples.  It  was  not  composed  before  the  Fall, 
or  the  Incarnation,  nor  in  Africa.  Torture  its  definitions, 
extort  an  unnatural  meaning,  and  you  make  a  consistent 
interpretation  of  the  Westminster  statements  concerning 
effectual  calling  impossible. 

It  is  important  to  notice  that  the  Seminary  Creed  recog- 
nizes the  Westminster  and  Savoy  distinction  between  the 
ordinary  means  of  grace  and  those  which  the  Spirit  maj- 
employ  at  his  good  pleasure.  It  thus  requires  for  its  consist- 
ent interpretation  that  the  article  resj)ecting  the  benefits 
received  in  this  life  by  the  "  effectually  called  "  be  not  pressed 
beyond  its  original  purpose  and  scope.  Where  the  Creed 
speaks  of  the  way  in  which  men  become  "  partakers  of  the 
benefits  of  redemption  "  it  says :  '■  the  ordinary  means  by 
which  these  benefits  are  communicated  to  us  are  the  word 
sacraments  and  prayer."  The  phrase  "the  ordinary  means" 
is  from  the  Westminster  Standards  and  recalls  the  antithe- 
sis already  noticed. 

The  article  in  the  Creed  connects  thus  with  the  same 
larger  circle  of  thought  recognized  by  the  Westminster 
divines.  It  would  be  against  the  whole  stream  of  Instory  to 
put  upon  a  Creed  prepared  in  New  England  at  the  beginning 
of  the  nineteenth  century  as  a  basis  of  union  of  all  phases  of 
Calvinism,  a  narrower  construction  than  that  intended  for 
the  same  words  bj''  theologians  a  century  and  a  half  earlier. 
The  Westminster  divines  admitted  a  wider  working  of  God's 
grace  than  they  could  define,  and  now  the  Andover  Creed 
which  copies  their  words,  and  at  the  same  time  teaches  a 
universal  atonement,  is  to  be  interpreted  so  as  to  shut  the 
door  which  even  the  men  who  held  to  a  limited  atonement, 
to  say  the  least,  did  not  close  ! 

And  after  all,  supposing  that  the   article  before  us  were 


140 

thus  perverted  from  its  purpose,  and  made  inconsistent  with 
its  history  and  the  Creed,  it  would  not  then  teach  that  the 
heathen  can  have  no  future  opportunity  of  grace,  but  simply 
that  they  will  not  avail  themselves  of  it  any  more  than  do 
the  non-elect  who  have  this  opportunity  here.  And  who 
can  believe  that  the  Founders  both  bungled  and  were  irrev- 
erent in  this  fashion,  as  would  be  true  of  them  if  they 
intended  to  have  this  article  construed  as  proposed. 

A  statement  certainly  ought  to  be  absolutely  decisive  to 
justify  an  interpretation  loaded  with  so  many  difficulties  and 
even  impossibilities.  As  it  stands,  so  far  is  it  from  being 
thus  conclusive  that  such  a  use  of  it  turns  it  from  its  appar- 
ent purpose,  attributes  to  it  a  design  unsupported  by  evi- 
dence, puts  it  into  contrariety  with  other  declarations  in  the 
same  Standards,  and  requires  an  interpretation  of  the  Creed 
that  makes  it  a  condition  of  office  at  Andover  to  teach  what 
never  has  been  taught  there  from  the  beginning,  namely, 
that  all  who  do  not  hear  the  gospel  in  this  life,  including 
all  infants  and  young  children,  and  multitudes  of  the  unfor- 
tunate who  have  lived  in  Christian  lands  without  the  requi- 
site organs  of  mental  and  moral  life,  are  not  among  the 
"  effectually  called,"  and  therefore  are  not  of  the  "  elect,"  and 
therefore  are  lost  forever.  And  such  logic  is  to  be  applied 
to  the  Creed  in  order  to  squeeze  out  of  it,  if  possible,  what 
the  framers  of  it  would  not  write  in  it  wlien  they  composed 
the  article  respecting  the  doom  of  the  wicked. 

Besides  this  inferential  argument,  I  know  of  but  one  otlier 
which  is  employed  in  order  to  render  it  impossible  for  a  Pro- 
fessor at  Andover  to  hope  that  a  universal  gospel  may  have 
some  provision  of  mercy  for  the  millions  upon  millions  who 
do  not  hear  of  it  in  this  life. 

It  has  been  supposed  that  the  Founders  defined  pretty 
clearly  in  their  Creed  the  doctrinal  test  which  they  desired 
to  impose.  Until  very  lately  no  other  has  been  so  much  as. 
suggested.  But  the  same  ingenuity  which  has  extracted  a 
modal  Trinity  out  of  phraseology  which  used  the  long  estab- 
lished and  technical  nomenclature  of  an  ontological  Tiinity, 
and  which  has  treated  the  articles  of  Progressive   Orthodoxy 


141 

as  though  they  were  a  bushel  of  words  out  of  which  children 
might  construct  sentences  to  suit  themselves,  has  discov- 
ered in  the  Statutes  a  new  Creed.  We  have  had  before 
disputes  over  the  Original  Founders'  Declaration,  and  the 
Creed  of  the  Associate  Founders ;  but  now  there  appears 
a  third  one,  never  before  known,  nor  suspected.  Certainly 
these  Statutes  are  progressive,  if  Orthodoxy  is  not.  This 
new  Creed  is  discovered  in  the  Preamble  to  the  Statutes. 

In  the  deeply  interesting,  and  I  may  say  affecting.  Pream- 
ble to  the  Statutes  of  the  Associate  Foundation,  the  Associate 
Founders  mention  some  of  the  motives  which  led  them  to 
consecrate  their  gifts  to  the  purpose  of  "  increasing  the  num- 
ber of  learned  and  able  Defenders  of  the  Gospel  of  Christ, 
as  well  as  of  orthodox,  pious,  and  zealous  Ministers  of  the 
New  Testament."  Among  these  considerations  they  mention 
the  fatal  effects  of  the  apostasy  of  man  without  a  Saviour, 
the  merciful  object  of  the  Son  of  God  in  assuming  our  nature 
and  dying  for  our  salvation,  the  institution  of  the  Christian 
ministry,  and  the  fact  that  "notwithstanding  this  appoint- 
ment the  greatest  part  of  the  human  race  is  still  perishing 
for  lack  of  vision."  These  latter  words  have  been  seized 
upon  and  turned  into  an  article  of  faith  and  a  condition  of 
the  trust  which  has  been  instituted. 

Such  a  use  of  them  when  explained  will  strike  every  can- 
did mind  as  illegitimate.  They  are  not  a  part  of  any  declara- 
tion, creed  or  promise  which  these  men  saw  fit  to  require  of 
those  to  whom  they  committed  their  trust.  They  are  simply 
declarations  of  a  motive  by  which  they  were  actuated  in 
making  their  gift,  'to  be  respected  as  such,  to  be  regarded  so 
far  as  they  express  a  permanent  law  and  motive  of  Christian 
conduct,  but  not  to  be  exalted  to  a  position  which  the  Found- 
ers themselves  did  not  assign  them ;  viz.,  that  of  a  required 
article  of  faith. 

I  say  this  chiefly  as  a  protest  against  the  method  of  this 
argument  of  the  complainants,  rather  than  against  its  matter. 
For  I  "  hold,  maintain  and  inculcate,"  as  my  own  belief  and 
as  a  motive  in  life,  that  men  are  perishing  for  lack  of  vision, 
i.e.,  for  the  want  of  a  knowledge  of  the  gospel.     Every  sinner 


142 

is  perishing,  and  is  in  clanger  of  perishing  everlastingly,  and 
will  thus  perish  save  as  redeemed  by  Christ.  Paul,  as  a 
friend  has  suggested,  goes  so  far  as  to  say,  "  For  as  many  as 
have  sinned  without  law,  shall  also  perish  without  law." 
This  is  stronger  language  than  that  of  the  Founders.  I  sub- 
mit to  the  Apostle.  But  how  would  Paul,  were  he  on  the 
earth,  rebuke  men  who  still  persist,  after  the  clearest  demon- 
stration that  such  was  not  his  teaching,  in  claiming  that  his 
words  compel  us  to  hold  that  all  the  heathen  actually  perish, 
that  not  one  will  be  saved.  He  believed  that  men  were  j)er- 
ishing  for  lack  of  vision,  but  not  that  this  exhausted  the  di- 
vine purpose  concerning  them.  Many  of  them  did  not  perish, 
for  through  this  same  Apostle  they  heard  of  Christ,  and  be- 
lieved in  Him.  Multitudes  now  are  perishing,  but  whether 
everlastingly  or  not,  depends  on  something  not  taken  into 
account  when  such  language  is  used. 

It  states  the  truth,  but  not  the  whole  truth.  It  presents  a 
motive  which  every  Professor  at  Andover  should  be  governed 
by,  but  it  is  not  a  statement  of  a  doctrine  which  rules  out  all 
hope  for  the  heathen,  any  more  than  does  Paul's  stronger 
declaration,  "  As  many  as  have  sinned  without  law  shall  also 
perish  without  law,"  for  to  some  of  such  he  afterwards  wrote 
the  letter  known  as  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  with  its  glow- 
ing representation  of  the  revealed  mystery,  and  its  assurance 
that  '  the  dead  in  trespasses  and  sins^  without  Christ,  having  no 
hope,  without  God  in  the  world,  now  had  access  hy  one  Spirit 
unto  the  Father,  and  had  become  a  habitation  of  God  through 
the  Spirit.'' 

There  is  one  other  consideration,  or  class  of  considerations, 
to  which  I  would  invite  your  special  attention  before  I  leave 
this  particular  numbered  eleven. 

In  the  reply  which  I  filed  Nov.  30,  referring  to  "  oppor- 
tunity to  be  influenced  by  the  motive  of  an  offered  Saviour," 
the  remark  is  made:  "It  seems  to  be  implied  in  the  univer- 
sality of  Christ's  Person,  Atonement,  and  Judgment."  In 
Progressive  Orthodoxy,  this  universality  is  often  spoken  of 
as  a  principle,  "  the  reality  of  Christ's  personal  relation  to 
the   human  race  as  a  whole,  and   to  every  member  of  it, — 


143 

the  principle  of  the  universality  of  Christianity."  This 
principle  is  put  forward  as  the  key  to  the  whole  volume 
(pp.  3,  4). 

What  I  wish  now  to  submit  to  you  is,  that  this  principle 
is  covered,  and,  I  may  say,  is  made  prominent  in  the  Creed. 

The  Creed  affirms  the  Deitv  of  Christ  and  his  Eternal 
Sonship.  This  Eternal  Son  became  man  and  continues  to 
be  God  and  Man  in  two  distinct  natures  and  one  person  for- 
ever. This  is  as  distinct  a  doctrine  as  words  can  contain  of 
the  universality  of  Christ's  Person  in  its  constitution.  He 
is  God,  —  you  cannot  limit  his  relation,  therefore,  without 
circumscribing  his  divinity.  I  speak  not  now  of  limitation 
in  method  of  revelation,  but  in  nature  or  essence.  He  is 
man,  but  so  that  his  manhood  unites  in  one  person  -with  the 
Eternal  Son  ;  he  is  not  an  individual  member  of  the  race, 
therefore,  like  you  and  me,  but  its  universal  head.  Now 
take  a  step  forward  with  the  Creed  :  "  [I  believe]  that,  agree- 
ably to  the  covenant  of  redemption,  the  Son  of  God,  and 
he  alone,  by  his  suffering  and  death,  has  made  atonement  for 
the  sins  of  all  men."  I  shall  endeavor  to  show  further  on 
that  here  we  have  one  of  the  two  distinctive  notes  of  this 
Creed,  that  if  anything  in  the  Creed  must  be  taken  with 
absolute  literalness  and  in  the  full  force  of  its  language,  this 
a  fortiori  must  be.  It  is  enough  now  to  leave  it  with  this 
repetition  of  its  words.  Agreeably  to  the  covenant  of  redemp- 
tion^  the  Son  of  God,  and  He  alone,  by  his  suffering  and 
death,  has  made  atonement  for  the  sins  of  all  men. 

Now  the  inference  which  my  associates  and  myself  have 
drawn  in  the  volume  called  Progressive  Orthodoxy,  is  to  our 
view  a  legitimate  and  even  necessary  deduction  from  the  prin- 
ciple thus  emphasized  in  the  Creed.  So  far  were  we  from 
supposing  that  we  were  teaching  contrary  to  the  Creed,  that 
we  regarded  ourselves  as  developing  one  of  its  most  character- 
istic principles,  namely  that  of  the  universality  of  the  religion 
of  the  cross  of  Christ.  We  were  fortified  in  this  conviction 
by  the  fact  that  there  is  another  principle  in  the  Creed  which 
also  aids  to  our  conclusion.  It,  too,  as  I  will  subsequently 
try  to  show,  is  a  characteristic,  a  special  note  and  feature  of 


144 

the  Creed.  I  refer  to  the  principle  that  God's  government  of 
mankind  deals  with  men  as  free  moral  agents,  that  sin  and 
righteousness  are  not  transferable  quantities  or  qualities,  nor 
passive  states,  but  imply  always  personal  agency.  God  deals 
not  only  with  man,  but  with  men,  every  man,  and  deals  with 
each  as  a  free  moral  agent.  Put  this  and  that  together  and 
grant  the  universality  of  Christianity,  and  that  every  man  is 
dealt  with  in  accordance  with  this  universality  as  a  free  moral 
agent,  and  we  have  the  entire  premise  of  our  argument.  And 
this  premise  is  not  only  in  the  Creed,  but  is  there  as  its  most 
distinctive  feature. 

I  suppose  no  one  will  question  that  we  have  a  right  to  the 
logic  of  the  Creed.  If  a  conclusion  thus  obtained  contra- 
dicts some  statement  elsewhere  made  in  the  same  document, 
a  question  of  interpretation  arises.  But  I  need  not  stop  to 
discuss  this  question  here,  for  the  Creed  makes  no  statement 
inconsistent  with  our  inference.  We  have  a  right,  therefore, 
to  our  conclusion  so  far  as  the  Creed  is  concerned.  That,  at 
any  rate,  does  not  estop  us.  It  is  not  a  condition  of  the  trust 
we  have  received  that  no  such  inference  be  drawn,  even  if 
the  inference  be  incorrect.  The  Founders  have  imposed 
upon  your  Reverend  and  Honorable  Body  serious  responsibil- 
ities, but  I  think  you  will  not  regret  that  you  are  not  made 
responsible  for  every  instance  of  bad  logic  on  the  part  of 
each  Andover  Professor. 

I  know  not  that  I  need  weary  you  with  any  detailed  reply 
to  the  remaining  particulars  in  the  Amended  Complaint.  I 
seem  to  myself  to  have  said  all  that  is  necessary  concerning 
them  in  the  Reply  which  has  been  filed. 

I  think,  also,  that  I  have  now  covered  the  ground  which 
has  been  definitely  chosen  for  the  present  issue  by  the  com- 
plainants. Everything  else  which  they  have  introduced  is 
not  sufficiently  specific  and  plain  as  an  accusation  to  enable 
and  require  me  to  answer  it. 

I  claim  therefore  that  upon  everj'-  one  of  the  charges  which 
are  properly  in  issue  the  complainants  have  failed  to  show 


145 

that  I  "hold,  maintain  and  inculcate  "  in  my  office  as  Pro- 
fessor anything  not  in  harmony  with  or  antagonistic  to  the 
Creed  and  Statutes  of  the  Seminary,  and  that  I  am  therefore 
entitled  to  a  complete  acquittal.  And  here  I  might  safely, 
I  douht  not,  rest  my  case. 

But  I  ask  your  indulgence  in  the  peculiar  position  in 
which  I  am  placed,  in  submitting  some  further  considera- 
tions, strictly  relevant,  as  I  conceive,  to  the  preceding 
issue,  but  derived  from  a  broader  range  of  views  than  has 
been  possible  in  following  one  by  one  particular  accusations. 

The  official  pledges  and  promises  at  Andover  do  not 
require  the  Professors  to  think  and  teach  in  all  respects 
alike.  They  do,  however,  make  it  imperative  that  we  should 
open  and  explain  the  Scriptures  to  our  pupils  with  integrity 
and  faithfulness.  They  impose  upon  us  the  sacred  obliga- 
tion to  unfold  the  truths  of  the  Creed  in  opposition  to  past 
heresies  and  current  errors  which  are  hazardous  to  men, 
according  to  the  best  light  God  shall  give  us.  This  is  a  law 
for  the  conscience  of  every  Professor. 

This  I  have  promised.  How  am  I  to  keep  this  promise  ? 
This  inquiry  involves  these  practical  questions.  How  am  I 
to  accept  the  Creed  of  the  Seminary?  How  ought  I  to 
accept  it?     How  ought  you  to  require  me  to  accept  it? 

I  raise  deliberately  this  larger  question,  with  all  that  it 
includes.  I  should  have  been  glad,  if  instead  of  compelling 
me  to  wander  through  the  long  and  tedious  list  of  preposter- 
ous charges  which  1  have  reviewed,  the  complainants  had 
raised  directly  the  vital  issue,  although  it  is  perhaps  credit- 
able to  their  sagacity  that  they  have  not. 

I  maintain  —  you  will  pardon  me  if,  under  the  conviction 
of  the  utter  unreasonableness  of  the  attack  which  has  been 
made  upon  our  fidelity  and  our  liberties,  I  do  maintain  — 
that  we  are  entitled  at  your  hands  to  something  more  than  a 
technical  acquittal.  We  have  endeavored,  in  sincerity  and 
good  conscience,  to  put  our  Lord's  money  out  to  usury.  It 
has  well  been  said  that  if  there  are  perils  in  such  a  course 
there  are  greater  perils  in  the  opposite  course.  The  man 
who  buried  his  talent  was  very  faithful  and  very  conserva- 


146 

tive,  as  some  men  understand  fidelity  and  conservatism,  but 
our  Lord  applied  to  him  other  designations.  We  have 
received  the  Creed  of  the  Seminary  as  a  sacred  trust.  We 
have  sought  to  put  its  truths  out  to  usury.  No  man,  in  my 
humble  judgment,  really  takes  the  Creed,  of  the  Seminary, 
no  man  is  fit  to  be  a  teacher  of  young  men  on  its  founda- 
tions, who  does  not  thus  endeavor.  It  has  been  said  that 
eventually  there  will  be  two  sets  of  Professors  at  Andover ; 
one  who  will  take  the  Creed  and  do  little  else,  another  that 
will  give  the  lectures.  I  may  be  wrong,  but  I  have  not  sup- 
posed this  to  be  the  "  true  intention  "  of  the  Founders. 

Permit  me  then  to  state  the  principles  by  which  I  have 
been  governed  in  my  acceptance  and  use  of  the  Creed,  that 
is,  in  fulfilling  my  promise  to  maintain  and  inculcate  the 
Christian  faith  as  expressed  in  the  Creed  ..."  so  far  as 
may  appertain  to  my  office,  according  to  the  best  light  God 
shall  give  me  ..." 

1.  I  accept  the  Creed  as  it  is  written.  I  have  supposed  my 
first  duty  to  be  to  understand  what  it  says,  to  gather  its 
meaning  from  its  own  words,  interpreting  them  by  the  ordi- 
nary and  established  rules  of  interpretation.  With  this 
understanding  of  the  formula  I  take  the  Creed  literally.  I 
reject  as  dishonest  the  theories  of  creed-subscription  desig- 
nated by  the  phrases  "  private  interpretation,"  "  non-natural 
sense." 

2.  I  accept  the  Creed  in  the  outcome  and  completeness  of  its 
meaning  when  compared  part  with  part.  I  do  not  find  its 
meaning  in  one  article  alone,  for  there  are,  besides  the  Dec- 
laration, thirty-six  distinct  articles.  I  subscribe  not  merely 
to  the  words  of  the  Creed,  but  rather  to  the  meaning  which 
the  words  yield  when  part  is  compared  with  part,  article  with 
article,  clause  with  clause.  Occasionally  a  single  technical 
word  may  modify  an  entire  article,  as  the  word  "  consti- 
tuted "  which  may  be  understood  to  contain  a  theory  going 
back  to  the  Council  of  Trent  and  into  the  scholastic  dis- 
putes between  the  followers  of  Aquinas  and  those  of  Duns 
Scotus,  or  the  word  "  Person  "  in  the  article  on  the  Trinity, 
which  has  d  history  from  the  days  of   Tertullian  ;  or   the 


147 

word  "  personally"  in  the  article  on  Depravity,  which  has  in 
it  the  outcome  of  disputes  between  different  schools  of  Cal- 
vinism, as  well  as  between  Calvinists  and  Arminians,  which 
had  been  oroinq;  on  for  centuries. 

Whatever  is  the  outcome  of  the  Creed  as  a  whole  I  accept. 

An  opposite,  or  apparently  opposite  theory  of  subscription 
has  been  asserted  with  great  positiveness  and  argued  with 
much  force.  It  is  that  a  Professor  in  signing  the  Creed 
accepts  each  article  by  itself.  I  admit  the  obligation  to 
believe  in  every  doctrine  of  the  Creed,  and  to  an  acceptance 
of  every  article  as  it  forms  a  consistent  part  of  the  whole  ; 
but  I  deny  the  binding  force  of  each  individual  statement, 
taken  apart  from  other  statements.  It  is  said  :  You  affirm 
your  belief  in  each.  My  reply  is,  that  I  cannot  be  required 
to  believe  in  contradictions,  and  that  the  Creed  must  be 
allowed  to  interpret  itself.  I  cannot  suppose  that  in  the 
same  breath  the  Founders  intended  to  require  me  to  be  a 
"  consistent "  Calvinist  and  to  take  an  inconsistent  Creed. 
They  must  therefore  have  intended  to  give  me  liberty  of 
interpretation  as  respects  particular  articles. 

Let  me  make  this  clear  by  an  example.  When  the  Creed 
comes  to  the  topic  of  Redemption  it  takes  three  articles  in 
succession  from  the  Catechism  and  adds  a  fourth  original  to 
itself.     The  articles  read  :  — 

"  [I  belieA^e]  that  God  of  his  mere  good  pleasure  from  all  eter- 
nity elected  some  to  everlasting  life,  and  that  he  entered  into  a 
covenant  of  grace  to  deliver  them  out  of  this  state  of  sin  and 
misery  b}-  a  Redeemer  ;  that  the  only  Redeemer  of  the  elect  is  the 
eternal  Son  of  God,  who  for  this  purpose  became  man,  and  con- 
tinues to  be  God  and  man  in  two  distinct  natures  and  one  person 
forever ;  That  Christ,  as  our  Redeemer,  executeth  the  office  of  a 
Prophet,  Priest  and  King ;  that  agreeably  to  the  covenant  of 
redemption,  the  Son  of  God,  and  He  alone,  b}'  His  suffering  and 
death,  has  made  atonement  for  the  sins  of  all  men." 

Down  to  these  last  words  we  have  the  language,  the  ipsis^ 
sima  verba,  of  the  Catechism.  And  even  in  this  article  we 
have  the  traditional  formula  "  covenant  of  redemption," 


148 

Now  if  •yon  take  these  articles,  each  as  it  stands,  giving  to 
each  its  natural,  histoiical,  full  meaning,  you  are  involved  in 
an  insoluble  contradiction  of  belief.  The  first  three  articles 
state  in  unequivocal  terms  the  doctrine  of  limited  atonement : 
the  fourth  expresses  plainly  the  doctrine  of  universal  atone- 
ment. In  other  parts  of  the  Creed  it  is  claimed  that  phrase- 
ology is  employed  broad  enough  to  admit  the  theories  of  all 
parties  to  the  coalition,  the  Old  or  High  Calvinists,  the  Mod- 
erate Calvinists,  and  the  Hopkinsian  Calvinists.  However 
this  may  be,  here,  at  least,  the  first  party  completely  surren- 
dered. It  is  just  possible  that  if  he  had  chosen  so  to  do  a 
High  Calvinist  might  have  said  "  made  atonement  for " 
means  "sufficient  for"  and  nothing  more,  but  this  puts  a 
strain  upon  the  words.  They  signified  much  more  than 
this  to  the  Hopkinsians.  They  meant  more  to  the  first  Pro- 
fessor of  Christian  Theology  at  Andover,  who  received  his 
nomination  to  their  chair  from  the  so-called  Orioinal  Founders, 
as  appears  from  his  celebrated  missionary  sermon  at  Salem  in 
1812,  in  which  he  emphasizes  the  motive  of  an  atonement 
not  only  "  sufficient  for  Asiatics  and  Africans,"  but  "  made  for 
them  as  well  as  for  us."  We  may  not  doubt  that  they  were 
understood  in  their  evangelical  sense  by  Moderate  Calvinists 
who  aided  in  the  counsels  from  which  the  Seminary  originated. 
Perhaps  I  spoke  too  strongly  when  I  used  of  any  Calvinist 
who  had  a  part  in  the  construction  or  institution  of  the  Creed 
the  word  "  surrendered  "  ;  there  may  have  been  no  resistance, 
no  disagreement  at  this  point,  though  the  earlier  Calvinists 
of  New  England,  represented  by  Samuel  Willard,  spurned 
even  the  concession  that  Christ's  death  was  "  sufficient "  for 
all. 

We  have  thus  in  the  Creed  new  language,  expressing  what 
was  still  a  novelty  in  Calvinistic  doctrine,  the  truth  that 
Christ  on  the  cross  died  for  all  men,  thrust  into  immediate 
sequence  upon  the  established  and  traditional  formulas  which 
had  affirmed  for  nearly  all  the  preceding  generations  in  New 
England  that  He  died  for  the  elect  onlj'.  1  say  only,  for 
though  this  word  does  not  occur  in  these  formulas,  its  mean- 
ing is  indelibly  impressed  on  them.     It  is  there  by  the  tech- 


149 

nical  and  well-understood  use  of  terras,  there  emphatically 
by  the  necessary  connection  and  logic  of  the  chosen  articles, 
there  unmistakably  and  completely.  First  you  have  the 
decree  of  election,  then  the  covenant  of  grace  which  in- 
cluded the  eternal  covenant  of  Redemption  between  the 
Father  and  the  Son  and  the  elect  in  Him ;  then,  in  pursu- 
ance of  this  electing  decree,  the  incarnation  of  the  Eternal 
Son,  who,  as  our  Redeemer,  i.e.,  as  Redeemer  of  the  elect, 
executed  the  office  not  only  of  Prophet  and  King,  but  of 
Priest,  in  which  latter  office,  as  the  Catechism  explains,  and 
the  traditional  theology  fully  agreed.  He  offered  "  up  of  him- 
self a  sacrifice  to  satisfy  divine  justice  and  reconcile  us  to 
God,"  all,  you  notice,  as  Redeemer  of  the  elect,  and  for  the 
elect,  and  in  pursuance  of  the  decree  of  election.  I  see  not 
how  any  man  who  takes  these  articles  literally  as  they  stand, 
who  sneers  at  taking  the  Creed  "  in  the  gross,"  and  insists 
on  the  acceptance  of  every  doctrinal  statement,  can  possibly 
extricate  himself  from  the  necessity  of  first  saying :  "  I  be- 
lieve that  Christ  executeth  his  office  of  priest  under  the 
decree  of  election,  and  for  the  purpose  of  that  election,"  and 
then  of  immediately  confessing  "  I  believe  that  he  executeth 
this  office  of  priest  under  a  different  decree  and  for  another 
purpose,  namely,  to  die  for  the  sins  of  the  non-elect  as  well 
as  of  the  elect."  There  is,  indeed,  one  supposable  way  out 
of  the  contradiction,  that  of  assuming  that  the  whole  race  is 
elected,  or  predetermined,  to  salvation,  as  Schleiermacher 
believed ;  but  this  is  only  a  temporary  escape,  for,  apart  from 
the  difficulty  of  interpreting  the  word  "  some  "  as  meaning 
all,  the  closing  sentences  of  the  Creed  are  unfriendly  to  a 
doctrine  of  universal  restorationism,  and  the  subscriber  would 
find  that  he  had  only  exchanged  one  contradiction  for 
another. 

This  antagonism  in  the  Creed  of  two  doctrines  of  the 
atonement  might  be  confirmed  by  tracing  in  detail  the  devel- 
opment of  the  two  phrases  "covenant  of  grace"  and  "cove- 
nant of  redemption,"  and  of  the  doctrine  of  the  order  of  the 
divine  decrees,  but  I  have  said  enough  by  way  of  illustration  — 
I  am  satisfied  that  it  is  simply  impossible  to  take  the  Creed 


150 

in  the  way  which  I  am  opposing.  I  do  not  believe  such  a 
method  ever  would  have  been  thought  of  but  for  the  exigen- 
cies of  controversy.  There  is  a  simple  way  out  of  these  diffi- 
culties,—  simple,  but  like  many  another  simple  principle  it 
is  found,  when  thoroughly  applied,  to  be  fruitful  in  important 
results.  It  is  the  path  which  the  framers  of  the  Creed  must 
have  intended  should  be  followed,  —  its  acceptance  as  a  whole 
and  as  it  ititerprets  itself. 

3.  I  accept  the  Creed  for  substance  of  doctrine.  I  employ 
this  phrase  under  certain  very  careful  restrictions.  Were  it 
not  for  the  phrases  "federal  head  and  representative,"  "cove- 
nant of  grace,"  "  covenant  of  redemption,"  I  should  not  need 
to  use  it  at  all,  and  I  am  not  sure  but  that  what  I  have  said 
about  taking  the  Creed  as  a  whole  comprehends  whatever 
qualification  I  give  to  these  terms.  Still,  for  the  sake  of  the 
utmost  explicitness,  I  will  state  precisely  what  latitude  I  sup- 
pose this  mode  of  taking  the  Creed  permits.  I  do  not  under- 
stand that  I  am  availing  myself  thereby  of  any  other  liberty 
than  the  framers  intended  should  be  used,  or  than  was  exer- 
cised while  they  were  living  and  acting  as  Visitors,  and  than 
has  been  acknowledged  and  practised  ever  since. 

The  phrase  "■  for  substance  of  doctrine  "  appears  in  the 
Preface  to  the  Cambridge  Platform,  adopted  by  the  Synod  of 
1648.  Referring  to  the  Confession  "agreed  upon  by  the 
reverend  assembly  of  divines  at  Westminster,"  the  Preface 
says:  "Finding  the  sum  and  substance  thereof,  in  matters 
of  doctrine,  to  express  not  their  own  judgment  only,  but 
ours  also  ...  we  thought  good  to  present  ...  to  our 
churches  .  .  .  our  professed  and  hearty  assent  and  attesta- 
tion to  the  whole  confession  of  faith  (for  substance  of  doc- 
trine)." The  Synod  also  passed  unanimously  a  vote  ex- 
pressing "  consent  thereunto,  for  the  substance  thereof." 
From  that  early  time  on  this  method  of  accepting  a  Creed  or 
Platform  has  obtained  in  New  England.  In  his  letters  to  Dr. 
Ware,  the  first  Abbot  Professor,  enjoying  the  confidence  of 
both  sets  of  Founders  of  the  Seminary  and  pre-eminent  in  his 
exertions  to  ensure  the  union,  and  writing  only  four  years 
after  a  "  perpetual  union  "  was  "  established,"  remarked :  "As 


151 

it  is  one  object  of  these  Letters  to  make  you  acquainted  with 
the  real  opinions  of  the  Orthodox  in  New  England,  I  would 
here  say,  with  the  utmost  frankness,  that  we  are  not  perfectly 
satisfied  with  the  language  used  on  this  subject  [Imputation] 
in  the  Assembly's  Catechism.  .  .  .  Hence  it  is  common  for 
us,  when  we  declare  our  assent  to  the  Catechism,  to  do  it 
with  an  express  or  implied  restriction."  ^  Dr.  Woods  subse- 
quently modified  his  interpretation  of  the  Catechism,  but  his 
testimony  as  to  the  custom  and  feeling  of  the  Orthodox  at 
that  time  and  to  his  own  liberty  is  not  thereby  affected.  ,  Dr. 
Humphrey,  President  of  Amherst  College,  and  a  Visitor  of 
the  Seminary,  once  remarked,  "  No  mortal  man,  with  a  mind 
of  his  own,  ever  accepted  the  Westminster  Catechism  without 
qualifications  of  his  own."  "  He  was  right,"  adds  Professor 
Phelps,  "  the  same  is  true  of  every  Confession,  —  unless  it  be 
some  brief  compendium  of  historic  fact,  rather  than  of  doc- 
trine, like  the  Apostles'  Creed."  ^  And  the  editor  of  the 
Conc/rec/ationalist,  between  four  and  five  years  since,^  defend- 
ing himself  from  the  imputation  of  hostility  to  creeds,  espe- 
cially the  Andover  Creed,  remarked,  .  .  .  "  for  substance  we 
heartily  accept  it,  as  Professors  Park  and  Phelps  have  always 
done." 

Even  that  stern  censor  of  former  Professors  at  Andover, 
Rev.  Daniel  Dana,  D.D.,  while  contending  against  their  here- 
sies, made  this  noteworthy  concession :  "  Nor  will  I  contend 
that  the  man  who  has  taken  a  lengthened  creed  should  be 
trammelled  by  all  the  minutice  which  it  may  embrace."*  And 
Dr.  Hodge,  in  the  Princeton  Mevieiv,  speaking  for  the  Old 
School  wing  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  nearly  a  generation 
ago,  remarked  (I  use  this  extract  on  the  a  fortiori  principle)  : 

"  It  is  a  perfectly  notorious  fact,  that  there  are  hundreds  of  min- 
isters in  our  Church,  and  that  there  alwaj's  have  been  such  minis- 
ters, who  do  not  receive  all  the  propositions  contained  in  the 
Confession  of  Faith  and  Catechisms.   .   .   .  The  principle  that  the 

1  Letters  to  Unitarians,  Andover,  1820,  p.  45. 

2  Quoted  by  Rev.  Dr.  Fiske  in  The  Creed  of  Andover  Theol.  Sem.,  1882,  p.  32 

3  June  21,  1882, 

*  Sermon  on  the  Faith  of  Former  Times,  1848,  note  to  p.  16. 


152 

adoption  of  the  Confession  of  Faith  implies  the  adoption  of  all 
the  propositions  therein  contained  ...  is  impracticable  ...  "is 
more  than  the  vast  majority  of  our  ministers  either  do  or  can 
do.  To  make  them  profess  to  do  it  is  a  great  sin.  It  hurts 
their  conscience.  It  fosters  a  spirit  of  evasion  and  subterfuge. 
It  teaches  them  to  take  creeds  in  a  '  non-natural  sense.'  It  at 
once  vitiates  and  degrades."  ^ 

A  common  method  in  New  England  may  be  illustrated  by 
an  extract  from  the  covenant  of  the  Church  in  Salem,  of 
which  Dr.  Daniel  Hopkins,  the  brother  of  Dr.  Samuel  Hop- 
kins, was  pastor  from  1778  to  1814,  —  the  church,  it  is  of 
further  special  interest  to  note,  with  which  the  Associate 
Founder  John  Norris  attended  worship. 

"Professing  a  belief  in  the  Christian  Religion  as  contained  in 
the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament,  and  embracing  that 
scheme  of  doctrine  which  is  exhibited  in  what  is  called  The  Assem- 
bly's Shorter  Catechism,  as  expressing,  for  substance,  those  impor- 
tant truths  which  God  has  revealed  to  us  in  his  holy  word."  And 
again:  "Knowing  the  necessity  of  order  and  discipline  in  every 
body  of  fallible  men,  we  promise  to  submit  ourselves  to  the  gov- 
ernment of  Christ  in  his  church  agreeably  to  the  directions  on  this 
subject  contained  in  the  eighteenth  chapter  of  Matthew,  and  as 
more  fully  set  forth  in  the  Platform  of  Church  Discipline  drawn  up 
by  the  Congregational  Synod,  at  Cambridge,  New  England,  A.D. 
1648,  which,  in  substance,  we  adopt,  as  agreeable  to  the  rules  and 
spirit  of  the  gospel."  ^ 

In  entire  concurrence  with  the  method  familiar  to  Dr. 
Hopkins  and  Mr.  Norris  at  Salem,  and  in  the  line  of  the  tes- 
timonies already  adduced,  are  the  reminiscences  and  testi- 
mony of  the  venerable  Gardiner  Spring,  a  son  of  Dr.  Samuel 
Spring,  one  of  the  authors  of  the  Seminary  Creed  and  one  of 
the  first  Visitors.  He  says,  referring  to  the  Westminster 
Confession  : 

"  Few,  in  this  age  of  inquir}',  believe  every  word  of  it.  Nor  did 
our  fathers.     I  myself  made  two  exceptions  to  it  when  I  was  re- 

1  Reprinted  in  Church  Polity,  pp.  330-332. 

2  The  Covenant  of  Third  Church  of  Christ  in  Salem,  Salem,  1841,  pp.  6,  7,  8. 


153 

ceived  into  the  Presbytery  of  New  York  fifty-five  years  ago.  Nor 
were  those  exceptions  any  barrier  to  my  admission.^  I  am  no 
bigot  and  no  friend  to  innovations.  Let  our  Confession  and  Cate- 
chism stand.  .  .  .  Witherspoon,  Rodgers,  McWhorter,  Smith, 
Miller  and  Richards  were  not  men  of  strife,  nor  did  they  lend  their 
influence  to  awaken  jealousies,  heart  burnings,  and  chilling  aliena- 
tions among  those  who  ought  to  love  as  brethren.  We  have  no 
Act  of  Uniformity  to  compel  a  perfect  unanimity  in  every  minute 
article  of  so  extended  a  Confession.  There  are  shades  of  thought 
and  forms  of  expression,  in  regard  to  which  men  will  not  cease  to 
think  for  themselves.  I  could  specify  man}'  points  in  which  not  a 
few  of  our  ministers  and  ruling  elders  do  not  exactly  agree  with 
our  standards.  Yet  they  are  all  honest  Calvinists,  and  receive 
our  standards  as  the  most  unexceptionable  formularies  ever  drawn 
up  by  uninspired  men,  and  receive  them  as  a  whole  with  all  their 
hearts.  The  iron  bed  of  Procrustes  is  not  suited  to  the  spirit  of 
the  age.  Some  modern  Theseus  will  yet  be  raised  up,  and  show 
to  the  church  that  there  is  small  space  for  the  couch  of  bigotry  in 
the  nineteenth  centur}'.^  " 

I  will  add  but  one  more  testimony,  and  this  not  from  a 

clergyman,  but  from   a  decision   of  the   Supreme    Court  of 

Massachusetts   rendered     by    Justice    Thacher  in    the   year 

1815. 

It  was  contended  that  a  legacy  to  the  Seminary  was  void, 

because  "  the  original  design  of  the  founders  of  the  Academy 
was  to  propagate  Calvinism,  as  containing  the  important 
principles  ...  of  our  holy  Christian  religion,  as  summarily- 
expressed  in  the  Westminster  Assembly  s  Shorter  Catechism  ; 
whereas,  the  design  of  the  donors  of  the  Associate  Founda- 
tion is  to  add  to  Calvinism  the  distinguishing  features  of  Hop- 
kinsianism,  a  union  or  mixture  inconsistent  with  the  original 
design  of  the  original  founders  of  the  Academy  and  of  the 
theological  institution."  It  was  further  contended,  that  if 
there  were  'but  one  single  article  in  the  Creed  contrary  to 
Calvinism,  or  a  single  article  omitted  from  the  Creed  which 
characterized    Calvinism    as    understood  at  the  time  of  the 

1  i.e.  1810.    Two  years  after  the  Associate  Foundation  was  established. 

2  Life  and  Times  of  Gardiner  Spring,  II.  pp.  21,  22. 


154 

foundation  of  the  Academy,'  the  legacy  was  null  and  void. 
The  Court  overruled  and  rejected  the  principle  that  a  Creed 
must  be  taken  in  its  several  articles  irrespective  of  other 
articles  or  equally  required  statements  of  doctrine. 

It  confirmed  as  of  legal  validity  the  principle  which  I  have 
stated  already  under  number  two  (2).  It  further  urged  the 
duty  of  "  charity  of  construction,"  by  which  "  technical  prop- 
ositions, should  not  be  pressed,  by  a  construction  "  astute,  nar- 
row and  uncharitable,"  into  an  antagonism  which  could  be 
avoided  ;  and,  applying  this  principle,  the  Judge  said  :  "  F'or 
myself,  I  confess  that  I  do  not  clearly  perceive  any  other 
sense  than  that  in  which  the  articles  mean  substantially  the 
same  thing,  notwithstanding  some  diversity  of  expression,  in 
which  they  can  be  said  to  be  true  and  consistent  with  the 
Christian  religion." 

I  quote  this  last  opinion,  not  merely  on  account  of  its 
great  weight  as  testimony,  but  because  it  indicates  the  true 
sense  and  application  in  the  case  before  us  of  the  phrases 
"  substantially  "  and  "  for  substance  of  doctrine." 

These  phrases  are  sometimes  objected  to,  not  without  rea- 
son, as  vague.  Dr.  Hodge  makes  this  criticism.  But  their 
convenience  and  utility  keep  them  in  use,  and  as  it  were 
compel  it.  Dr.  Hodge,  after  rejecting  them,  gives  illustra- 
tion upon  illustration  which  implies  his  acceptance  of  just 
what  they  are  commonly  understood  to  mean. 

These  phrases  do  not  mean  that  a  signature  for  substance 
of  doctrine  can  cover  a  method  by  which  the  substance  of  a 
creed  is  eliminated  ;  nor  one  by  which  any  doctrine  is  rejected 
which  belongs  to  a  creed  when  it  is  regarded  as  a  whole. 
They  cover  two  points :  first,  a  distinction  between  the 
necessary,  integral  parts  or  doctrines  of  a  creed  and  those 
wliich  are  subsidiary  and  non-essential ;  second,  a  distinction 
between  contents  [substance]  and  form. 

In  the  first  of  these  two  senses  it  may  be  thought  that  the 
phrases  "  for  substance  of  doctrine  "  or  "  substantially  "  can 
have  no  place  in  the  interpretation  of  a  creed  so  precise  as 
that  appointed  by  the  Associate  Founders.  Such  a  use,  it 
may  be  feared,  would  run  into  the  objectionable  method  by 


155 

which  a  doctrine  accepted  "for  substance"  is  "substantially" 
rejected.  I  admit  the  necessity  of  care  and  explicitness.  I 
deny,  however,  that  the  phrases  have  no  application,  or  are 
of  no  service.  They  embody  the  principle  expressed  by  Jus- 
tice Thacher  in  the  words  "  charity  of  construction." 

A  Creed  like  the  Andover  is  not  the  work  of  one  mind,  but 
of  many  minds  ;  not  of  one  age,  but  of  very  many.  Its  tradi- 
tional phraseology  is  the  larger  part  of  it.  It  deals  with 
many  subjects  which  are  only  approximately  apprehended  by 
the  Church  as  a  whole,  and  are  somewhat  differently  appre- 
hended by  various  schools  of  thought,  and  various  theolo- 
gians, all  of  whom,  however,  are  in  general  agreement.  Take 
what  are  called  the  mysteries  of  Christianity  —  the  Trinity, 
the  union  of  two  natures  in  one  Person.  The  Creed  of  Chal- 
cedon,  which  is  the  standard  orthodox  symbol  on  this  latter 
mystery,  is  called  in  the  records  a  "boundary."  It  is  a  defi- 
nition in  the  sense  of  pointing  out  certain  errors  to  which 
faith  is  exposed  and  which  the  true  doctrine  will  exclude, 
certain  limits  on  either  side,  which  cannot  be  passed  without 
renouncing  certain  necessary  elements  of  belief.  The  Creed 
says:  'The  doctrine  is — there  are  two  natures;  hold  this 
theory  or  that,  and  you  deny  one  nature  or  the  other,  the 
divine  or  the  human.  The  doctrine  is:  There  is  one  person ; 
hold  this  theory  or  that,  and  you  come  into  contradiction  to 
this  personal  unity.'  But  no  man  in  his  senses  ever  thought 
that  this  definition  gives  us  an  exhaustive  statement  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  Person  of  Christ,  or  shuts  up  a  man  who  con- 
fesses it  to  every  subsidiary  formula  which  men  have  invented 
in  endeavoring  more  firmly  to  apprehend  it,  or  more  fully  to 
appropriate  it.  It  lies  in  the  nature  of  the  truths  confessed 
in  a  creed,  that  they  are  not  measurable  nor  ponderable  nor 
definable  like  the  commodities  or  currencies  of  commerce,  like 
an  acre  of  ground,  or  a  house-lot,  or  a  dollar  whether  gold  or 
silver.  One  does  not  sign  a  creed  precisely  as  he  signs  a  note. 
There  is  a  mischievous  fallaciousness  in  the  way  in  which 
men  use  such  comparisons,  and  then  proceed  to  impeach  their 
brethren's  honesty,  simply  because  they  do  not  know  what 
they  themselves  are  talking  about. 


156 

This  principle  of  "  charitable  construction  "  by  which  di- 
versities of  form  in  holding  a  doctrine  are  overlooked,  has 
been  employed  in  the  history  of  the  Seminary  and  under  the 
eyes  of  its  founders,  so  as  to  cover  not  merely  a  diversity  as 
to  the  form  but  as  to  the  substance  of  subsidiary  or  unessen- 
tial doctrine.  One  perfectly  plain  tenet  of  the  Creed,  if  an 
individual  and  important  phrase  is  to  be  pressed,  has  never 
been  required.  At  one  time  I  presume  most  of  those  who 
subscribed,  Professors  and  Visitors  alike,  did  not  accept  it  in 
its  proper  meaning  as  it  stands  in  the  Creed.  I  refer  to  the 
doctrine  of  the  Eternal  Sonship. 

The  Creed  says :  "  [I  believe]  that  the  only  Redeemer  of 
the  elect  is  the  eternal  Son  of  God,  who  for  this  purpose  be- 
came man,  and  continues  to  be  God  and  man  in  two  distinct 
natures  and  one  person  forever."  Every  Professor,  every 
Visitor,  since  the  Seminary  was  founded,  has  signed  this 
statement.  One  of  the  earliest  signatures  is  that  of  Moses 
Stuart.  In  his  Letters  to  Rev.  William  E.  Channing  ("  1819, 
republished  in  five  successive  editions")  Pro'f.  Stuart  repudi- 
ated, as  is  well  known,  the  Nicene  and  historical  church  doc- 
trine of  Eternal  Generation,  or  that  the  Son  was  always  Son. 
He  admitted  an  eternal  distinction  in  the  divine  nature,  that 
this  distinction  became  incarnate  and  was  called  Son  as  in- 
carnate, but  denied  that  the  name  Son  properly  designates 
this  distinction  considered  as  eternal.  In  a  word,  the  words 
Eternal  Son  did  not  mean  to  him  what  they  had  meant  in  the 
church,  what  they  meant  in  the  Catechism,  whose  words  are 
here  appropriated,  what  they  meant  in  the  traditional  theol- 
ogy of  New-England,  what  the}^  meant  to  Dr.  Samuel  Hop- 
kins and  to  Dr.  Samuel  Spring,  both  of  whom  are  explicit 
even  to  the  rejection  and  condemnation  of  any  denial  of  this 
established  traditional  meaning.  I  know  of  no  evidence  that 
at  the  time  the  Creed  was  written  they  had  gained  any  new 
accepted  interpretation.  They  require  in  the  Creed  therefore 
their  ordinary  sense. 

Professor  Stuart  rejected  this  tenet,  and  apparently  without 
any  hesitation  or  misgiving.  He  defined  his  position  in  re- 
spect to  the  creed  of  Nicea  by  saying  that  "the  thing  aimed 


157 

at  was  in  substance  to  assert  the  idea  of  a  distinction  in  the 
Godhead,"  which  is  perfect!}^  true  as  the  history  shows.  He 
said  later  that  the  fathers  were  "  in  substance  right,  their 
pneumatic  philosophy  plainly  inadmissible."  ^  He  must  have 
explained  to  himself  his  disagreement  with  the  language 
of  the  Catechism  in  the  Seminary  Creed  on  the  same  princi- 
ple. He  held  what  the  phrase  "  Eternal  Son,"  in  its  tradi- 
tional sense,  stood  for,  viz.,  the  doctrine  of  the  Deity  of 
Christ.  But  the  traditional  form  of  this  belief,  as  embodied 
in  this  phrase,  he  denied.  That  is,  he  held  to  the  substance 
of  the  doctrine,  as  this  is  an  integral  and  essential  part  of  the 
Creed,  but  he  rejected  a  subsidiary,  and  as  he  regarded  it, 
unessential  and  unbiblical  form  of  that  doctrine  in  its  sub- 
stance, though  this  is  a  part  of  the  substance  of  the  Creed. 

This  was  done  by  him  while  he  was  in  most  intimate  rela- 
tions with  the  early  Founders  of  the  Seminary,  particularly 
with  the  Associate  Founder  William  Bartlet,  who  continued  to 
pay  bills  for  German  books,  which  Professor  Stuart  imported 
almost  by  the  cart-load,  and  who  never  was  disturbed,  I  pre- 
sume, because  small  men  and  narrow  men  cried  out  against  his 
Professor's  neology.  Professor  Stuart  was  called  to  account 
by  Dr.  Miller  of  Princeton,  and  in  reply  published  a  heterodox 
book  and  assiduously  followed  up  all  this  "heterodoxy"  by 
excursus  after  excursus  in  his  commentaries,  and  by  articles 
in  the  Biblical  Repository  and  the  Bibliotheca  Sacra. 

I  have  had  myself  a  little  experience  in  relation  to  this 
doctrine.  I  have  been  led  to  accept  the  ordinary  church 
doctrine,  and  that  of  the  Catechism  and  the  Creed.  1  do 
not  wish  to 

"Compound  for  sins  [I  am]  inclined  to 
By  damnhig  those  [I]  have  no  mind  to ;  " 

but  I  am  persuaded  that  Professor  Stuart  was  wrong  in  the 
result  of  his  exegesis  on  this  point  and  in  his  interpreta- 
tion of  the  history  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Eternal  Sonship. 
I  agree  with  the  early  Hopkinsians  as  well  as  with  Charles 
Kingsley  and  Frederick  D.  Maurice  in  thinking  this  doctrine 

i  Bibliotheca  Sacra,  vii.  p.  314. 


158 

an  important  one,  and  its  rejection  an  error  .of  some  conse- 
quence. Coming  early  in  my  teaching  at  Andover  to  this 
conclusion,  I  have  maintained  the  Creed  on  this  point  as  I 
promised  according  to  the  best  light  God  has  given  me. 
I  soon  learned,  by  the  fire  of  questions  poured  in  upon  me 
that  my  pupils  had  been  taught  otherwise  in  another  lecture 
room.  I  made  no  allusions  to  such  teaching,  but  simply 
kept  on  with  my  own.  It  never  occurred  to  me  that  some- 
body should  be  tried  for  "heterodoxy."  If  I  had  been  a 
lawyer,  certainly  if  I  could  have  been  a  judge,  I  should  have 
said  that  the  article  in  the  Creed  was  doubtless  subscribed 
by  my  pupils'  teacher  in  Cliristian  theology,  who  had  sub- 
scribed to  the  phrase  "  Eternal  Son  "  in  the  Catechism  as 
well  as  in  the  Creed,  on  the  principle  of  "  charitable  con- 
struction," but  being  not  a  lawyer  nor  judge,  but  a  Professor 
of  Ecclesiastical  History,  I  thought  and  still  think  that  he 
subscribed  on  the  principle  which  he  now  so  vehemently 
repudiates,  and  which  is  expressed  in  the  venerable  New 
England  formula,  "  for  substance  of  doctrine." 

This  will  I  think  make  clear  the  full  extent  of  my  mean- 
ing. I  reject  all  vague  and  loose  applications  of  the  phrase 
"  for  substance,"  but  it  has,  I  hold,  its  legitimate  place  in 
any  requirement  of  subscription  to  the  Seminary  Creed 
which  has  even  a  decent  regard  to  past  usage,  whether  at 
Andover  or  in  the  church  at  large,  or  to  the  decisions  of  legal 
tribunals,  or  to  the  true  intentions  of  such  men  as  founded 
the  Seminary  whether  Hopkinsiaus  or  Old  Calvinists. 

I  know  of  but  one  important  objection  to  this  claim.  It  is 
said  that  the  purpose  of  the  Hopkinsians,  who  put  the 
Creed  into  their  Statutes,  and  came  into  the  union  on  its 
acceptance  by  the  Andover  Founders,  was  to  compel  the 
Moderate  Calvinists  to  greater  strictness  of  belief  at  Andover 
than  could  be  secured  by  a  general  consent  to  the  Catechism  ; 
that  in  their  opinion  a  general  subscription  or  assent  had  let 
into  the  ministry  a  great  many  men  who  were  doctrinally 
unsound,  and  that  they  intended  to  bar  out  such  looseness. 
If  now  their  own  Creed  is  to  be  subscribed  for  substance,  as 
the   Catechism   had   been    taken,   the   desired   protection    is 


159 

thrown  away,  aTid  the  assumed  purpose  of  the  Founders  is 
frustrated. 

I  think  this  is  a  fair  criticism  upon  such  interpretations 
and  uses  of  the  formula,  "  for  substance  of  doctrine,"  as  I 
have  rejected  and  condemned. 

But  it  goes  no  further.     It  overlooks  important  facts. 

1.  The  fact  that  the  Creed  is  a  union  Creed.  What  was 
its  origin  and  first  form  is  uncertain.  One  account  repre- 
sents that  it  was  constructed  for  the  Newbury  Seminary, 
which  was  not  intended  to  be  a  mere  Hopkinsian  affair,  but . 
broader.  Another  alleges  that  it  was  first  presented  to 
Dr.  Spring  by  Dr.  Pearson  who  represented'  the  Andover 
Founders.  All  accounts  agree  that  it  was  not  intended  for 
a  mere  party,  and  that  it  was  finally  accepted  as  a  basis  of 
union.  It  has  from  early  times  been  called  a  "  compromise  " 
Creed.  It  certainly  was  designed  to  be  comprehensive,  and 
this  is  a  more  honorable  description  of  it. 

2.  The  fact  that  the  Creed  contains  traditional  phraseology 
which  was  accepted  in  its  traditional  meaning  by  some  at 
least  of  those  who  entered  into  the  union. 

8.  The  fact  that  these  men  approved  of  this  language 
being  taken  by  other  men  with  a  new  meaning,  and  that 
those  who  thus  took  it  consented  that  such  language  should 
remain  in  the  Creed. 

One  of  these  historical  phrases  is  contained  in  the  article : 
"  [I  believe]  that  Adam,  the  federal  head  and  representative 
of  the  human  race  was  placed  in  a  state  of  probation  and 
that  in  consequence  of  his  disobedience  all  his  descendants 
were  constituted  sinners."  The  phrase  "federal  head  and 
representative  "  is  the  symbol  of  a  distinct  type  of  theology. 
In  New  England  this  had  been,  until  the  days  of  Jonathan 
Edwards,  and  particularly  of  Samuel  Hopkins,  the  established 
system.  It  is  the  teaching  of  the  Catechisms  and  the  Con- 
fession. It  was  undergoing  changes,  but  its  essential  idea 
that  man's  depravity  comes  to  him  not  simply  as  an  act  of 
sovereignty  but  of  law  and  justice  was  not  yet  abandoned. 
Emmons  found  it  necessary  to  preach  against  it  elaborately. 
Nor  was  it  excluded  from  the  Creed  by  the  phrases  "  in  con- 


160 

sequence  of  "  and  "  were  constituted  sinners."    The  latter  is  as 
old  as  the  Vulgate/     It  is  Calvin's 2  language,  and  Turretin's.3 
Professor  Park  comments  on  it  as  though  it  were  distinctive 
of  Emmons.     He  says :  "  In  one  and  the  same  discourse  the 
doctor  [Emmons]   calls  Adam  '  a  federal  head  of  the  race ' 
and  criticises   the  Assembly's   Catechism   for  teaching  that 
Adam  entered  into  a  literal  covenant  with  his  Maker.     So  in 
one  and  the  same  sentence  the  Creed  excludes  all  that  the 
Catechism  says  in  regard  to  the  covenant  of  works,  quotes  the 
very  language  of  Emmons,  that  all  Adam's  '  descetidanis  were 
constituted  sinners,''  and  also  designates  Adam  as  '  the  federal 
head  and  representative  of  the  race  '.    One  sermon  of  Emmons 
is  compressed  into  one  article  of  the  Creed."    Unfortunately 
for  this  representation  the  sermon  referred  to  was  not  preached 
until  after  the  Creed  was  adopted,  and  the  Seminary  estab- 
lished ;  nor,  so  far  as  I  can  ascertain,  was  it  published  until 
1860  in  the  edition  of  Emmons's  w^orks  to  which  Dr.  Park 
contributed  a  memoir.     It  is  also  well  understood  that  Dr. 
Emmons  was  not  entirely  satisfied  with   the   Creed.     And, 
apart  from  all  this,  every  old  Calvinist  could  use  the  phrase 
"were  constituted"  and  even  "in  consequence  of,"  as  well 
as    the    Hopkinsians.     So   that  the  article    might   with  less 
forcing  of  its  terms  be  harmonized  with  the  Old  Theology 
than  with  the   New.     Yet,  on   the   other  hand,  it  does  not 
speak  of  the  covenant  of  works,  nor  impute  Adam's  sin  as 
guilt  to  his  posterity,  and   the  general  shaping  of  the  lan- 
guage in  the  context  is  all  friendly  to  the  new  conceptions 
of  moral    agency    which    the     Hopkinsians   were    zealously 
propagating.     They  too  could  live  under  this  article  in  the 
Creed  provided  they  could  be  allowed  to  accept  the  federal 
headship  of  Adam  with  a  certain  degree  of  latitude,  in  other 
words  "  for  substance  of  doctrine."     Professor  Park  really  ad- 
mits this  to  be  the  true  explanation.  For  he  adds  to  the  words 

1  "Peccatores  constituti  sunt  multi."    Vulgate  transl.  of  Rom.  v.  19. 

2  "  Queraadmodum  enhn  per  inobedientiam  unius  hoininis  peccatores  con- 
stituti sunt  multi :  sic  et  per  obedientiam  unius  justi  coustituentur  iiiulli." 
Com.  on  Rom.  v.  19. 

3  "  Eadem  quippe  ratione  constituiraur  peccatores  in  Adamoqua  justi  con- 
stituiiiiur  in  Christo."  Inst.  Theol.  Eleivt.,  Pars  Prima,  Locus  Nonas  De 
Ptcmto.    Q.  IX,  §  xvi.  ed.  Lugd.  Batav.  1G96,  Vol.  I.  p.  USl. 


161 

I  have  just  quoted  the  statement,  "  The  disclaimer  of  a  word 
in  a  literal  sense  need  not  be  a  disclaimer  of  it  in  a  figurative 
sense,"  and  earlier  on  the  same  page,  he  says :  "  Those  Hop- 
kinsians,  however,  did  not  believe  in  any  literal  covenant  of 
works.  They  could  use  the  term  figuratively,  but  would  not 
insert  the  language  of  the  Catechism  into  their  Creed." 
Their  Creed!  It  was  not  theirs  alone.  It  was  the  Creed  of 
the  Federalists  also,  who  could  use  the  terms  of  this  the- 
ology as  the  Hopkinsians  could  not.  So  that  we  are  shut 
up  to  this  conclusion.  The  Federalists  put  into,  or  found  in, 
the  Creed  their  favorite  phrase  "federal  head  and  repre- 
sentative "  ;  the  Hopkinsians  at  least  consented  to  its  remain- 
ing there  ;  and  each  party  understood  not  only  that  it  might 
bear  a  different  meaning  to  the  other,  but  that  even  if  it  did 
so,  and  the  Creed  were  thus  taken,  it  was  satisfactorily  taken, 
for  it  was  accepted /br  SM^stewce  of  doctrine.  Some  criticism 
has  been  expended  upon  the  Founders  for  their  consenting 
to  an  ambiguous  article.  If  the  principle  of  the  procedure 
were  that  each  party  should  find  his  own  doctrine  by  catch- 
ing at  one  clause  and  ignoring  another,  by  interpreting /e(iera^ 
headship  "figuratively"  and  constituted  "literally,"  or  vice 
versa,  I  think  the  procedure  could  not  be  defended.  I  sup- 
pose it  to  have  been  a  larger,  a  firmly  established  and  well 
understood  principle  on  which  they  acted,  namely,  that  what- 
ever special  theories  these  technical  formulas  suggested,  and 
whatever  preferences  one  person  or  another  might  entertain 
as  respects  these  subsidiary  forms  of  doctrine,  the  great  fact 
was  confessed  of  human  depravity,  so  that  men  are  acknowl- 
edged to  be  "morally  incapable  "  of  self-recovery,  and  to  be 
in  need  of  a  Redeemer,  and  of  regeneration  by  the  Holy 
Spirit.  Admit  that  the  Article  I  have  been  considering  can 
be  accepted  "for  substance  of  doctrine,"  as  I  believe  it  has 
been  subscribed  from  the  first,  and  you  simply  apply  to  the 
Creed  a  well-known  principle.  Deny  that  this  is  legitimate, 
and  you  make  an  honest  subscription  impossible  for  any  one 
but  a  Federal  Calvinist,  and  discredit  the  entire  history  of 
the  Seminary.  It  is  discovered  that  Dr.  Emmons  once  or 
twice,  when  he  could  not  be  misunderstood,  used  the  older 


162 

phraseology  figuratively.  And  this  is  brought  forward  as  a 
reason  for  giving  the  phrase  the  same  interpretation  in  a  care- 
fully drawn  Creed.  In  other  words,  because  a  preacher,  in 
order  to  avoid  a  seemingly  entire  divorce  of  his  thought  from 
inherited  principles,  uses  a  familiar  term  in  a  way  which  sug- 
gests a  connection  between  his  own  clearly  explained  and 
new  views  and  the  older  theology,  we  have  a  right  to  under- 
stand such  a  phrase  in  a  Creed  to  be  figurative^  and  so  are 
enabled  to  sign  it  literally,  and  avoid  the  offense  of  taking  it 
substantially,  as  it  has  been  taken  from  the  time  it  was  first 
written.  I  claim  the  right  to  abide  by  the  accepted  usage  and 
the  long  established  principle,  and  this  not  merely  with  refer- 
ence to  this  article  but  wherever  a  similar  exigency  arises, 
always  remembering  the  restrictions  I  have  acknowledged. 

There  is  one  other  general  principle  in  the  acceptance  of 
theological  creeds  which  was  emphasized  By  Dr.  Henry  B. 
Smith,  and  which  is  of  importance  now.  I  remark  therefore 
fourthly, 

4.     I  accept  the  Seminary  Creed  in  its  historical  sense. 

I  do  not  mean  by  this  that  opinions  which  it  does  not  ex- 
press may  be  read  into  it  because  they  were  entertained  at  the 
time  it  was  written,  and  perhaps  by  the  men  who  composed 
it ;  nor  that  opinions  which  they  put  into  it  may  be  taken  out 
of  it  because,  perchance,  if  they  were  living  now,  they  would 
appoint  a  different  creed. 

The  Associate  Founders  reserved  to  themselves  the  rieht 
for  seven  years  to  amend  the  Creed.  They  prohibited  sub- 
sequent alterations.  This  does  not  define  the  nature  of  sub- 
scription, as  some  have  affirmed;  but  it  doubtless  does  exclude, 
indirectly  or  by  necessary  inference,  any  mutilation  of  the 
Creed  in  its  administration,  either  by  adding  to  it  a  tenet 
which  it  does  not  authorize,  or  subtracting  from  it  one  that 
it  requires.    To  this  extent  it  supplies  a  rule  for  subscription. 

I  agree  to  this  rule,  and  do  not  assert  anj^thing  contrary  to 
it  when  I  affirm  the  historical  sense  of  the  Creed.  I  intend 
by  this  formula  to  emphasize  several  things. 

(1)  The  language  of  the  Creed  must  be  interpreted  histor- 
ically.    Its  traditional  terms,  not  otherwise  explained,  must 


163 

have  their  traditional  meaning.  Whatever  of  strictness, 
whatever  of  liberality,  belongs  to  them  when  thus  under- 
stood, enures  to  the  subscriber  now  as  at  the  first. 

Such  words  and  phrases  are  some  already  noticed :  "  only 
perfect  rule  of  faith  and  practice,"  "three  Persons,"  "same 
in  substance,"  "  equal  in  power  and  glory,"  "Adam,  the  fed- 
eral head  and  representative,"  and  so  on. 

Many  Trinitarians  hold  to  a  personal  or  hypostatic  subor- 
dination of  the  Son  to  the  Father.  So  long  as  this  is  not  under- 
stood to  contradict  what  is  affirmed  by  the  phrase  "  same  in 
substance,"  there  is  nothing  in  the  Creed  to  exclude  such  a 
mode  of  belief.  For  the  phrase  "equality  in  power  and 
glory  "  historically  interpreted  does  not  exclude  either  official 
or  personal  subordination,  but  only  essential.  One  who 
denies  the  true  Divinity  of  the  Son  could  not  sign  the  Creed 
honestly,  but  any  believer  in  this  doctrine,  though  a  subordi- 
nationist,  might  accept  it.  We  have  li^re,  as  vevy  often  in 
the  Creed,  phrases  which  are  not  contracted  but  comprehen- 
sive, leaving  room  for  many  minor  modifications  of  belief. 

So  the  term  "federal  head,"  which  also  is  left  undefined, 
has  a  historical  latitude  of  meaning.  It  came  into  vogue  in 
opposition  to  an  extreme  type  of  Calvinism.  It  represented 
a  new  departure.  It  characterized  a  movement  away  from 
scholastic  Calvinism  in  the  direction  of  a  Biblical  Calvinism, 
It  was  a  protest  againsi  an  over-wrought  doctrine  of  sov- 
ereignty, in  the  interest  of  human  freedom.  A  man  is  not 
simply  a  creature,  but  a  person,  with  whom  God  condescends 
to  make  a  covenant.  A  distinguished  theologian,  to  whom 
I  have  before  referred,  contends  that  the  Creed  must  be  taken 
in  all  its  details,  and  cannot  be  taken  as  other  Creeds  are 
taken,  but  when  he  speaks  of  its  federal  terms  he  says,  in 
language  already  partly  quoted,^  that  the  Founders  "  believed 
wisely  in  the  '  covenant  of  redemption  '  and  in  the  '  covenant 
of  grace,'  as  these  terms  were  understood  by  the  divines 
whom  they  deemed  most  authoritative.  Those  Hopkinsians, 
however,  did  not  believe  in  any  literal  covenant  of  ivorks. 
They  would  use  the  term  figuratively  ..."  Thus  by  a 
1  The  Associate  Creed  of  And.  Theol.  Sem.,  pp.  44,  45. 


164 

"  wise  "  interpretation  and  a  "  figurative  "  interpretation,  all 
the  "details"  of  the  Creed  can  be  accepted  literally! 
But  there  is  no  need  of  such  latitudinarian  canons. 
Taken  historically  all  these  terms  are  way-marks  of  pro- 
gress along  the  line  of  modern  theology,  as  it  has  more  and 
more  realized  the  true  character  of  God  as  revealed  in  Christ, 
his  overstepping  the  bounds  of  instituted  law  in  the  promises 
of  his  grace,  his  dealing  with  men  as  persons  endowed  by 
Him  with  inalienable  rights.  Professor  Park  has  been  wont 
to  say  that  the  covenant  of  works  was  made  in  Holland.  It 
was  —  and  it  has  in  it  the  principle  of  liberty  for  which  the 
Netherlanders  fought  by  land  and  sea.  I  would  not  miss  from 
the  Creed  Bullinger's  "  covenant  of  grace "  or  Cocceius's 
"  covenant  of  works  "  in  the  form  of  Adam's  federal  headship. 
They  are  all  there,  and  the  signer  of  the  Creed  has  his  rights 
under  them  and  to  them.  They  are  still  a  standing  protest 
against  an  extreme  type  of  Calvinism  which  after  having 
been  modified  by  Federalism  suddenly  shot  up  like  Jonah's 
gourd  in  Emmonsism.  The  Creed,  as  Professor  Park  wisely 
but  not  figuratively  claims,  is  "protective,"  if  historically 
taken,  and  as  a  whole. 

(2)  Whenever  traditional  language  is  departed  from  and 
new  phraseology  introduced  we  are  brought  into  special 
contact  with  the  intention  of  the  Founders. 

In    the  legal  interpretation  of   a  document  which  is  com- 
posed of  printed  matter  and  written  statements,  the  latter  • 
have  the  preference  in   interpreting   the    author's  purpose. 
They  more  especially  express  his  mind  and  will. 

This  is  an  important  principle  in  its  application  to  the 
Seminary  Creed. 

There  are  three  parts  of  the  Creed  in  which  these  novelties 
of  doctrine  appear  —  the  part  which  relates  to  original  sin, 
the  one  which  treats  of  redemption,  and  the  part  which 
treats  of  God's  universal  moral  government ;  and  the  new 
matter  introduced  consists  of  either  an  enlargement  or  cor- 
rection of  the  traditional  theology  in  respect  to  two  points, 
God's  purpose  of  redemption,  and  the  ethical  principles  by 
which  He  is  governed  in  dealing  with  men  •  these  two  aspects 


165 

of  truth  being  indeed  but  one  principle  by  which  Theology 
always  makes  what  progress  it  achieves,  namely,  a  more 
thoroughly  ethical  or  Christian  apprehension  of  God. 

The  truth  of  what  I  have  been  saying  will  appear  to  any 
one  who  examines  intelligently  a  copy  of  the  Creed,  like  the 
one  I  have  prepared  which  shows  by  Italics  those  portions 
which  are  copied  from  the  Shorter  Catechism,  by  Roman 
type  and  black  ink  where  the  thoughts  of  the  Westminster 
Standards  are  reproduced,  and  by  red  ink  what  is  new. 

"  Every  Professor  on  this  foundation  shall  be  a  Master  of 
Arts  of  the  Protestant  Reformed  Religion,  an  ordained  Min- 
ister of  the  Congregational  or  Presbyterian  denomination, 
and  shall  sustain  the  character  of  a  discreet,  honest,  learned, 
and  devout  Christian,  an  orthodox  and  consistent  Calvinist ; 
and,  after  a  careful  examination  by  the  Visitors  with  reference 
to  his  religious  principles,  he  shall,  on  the  day  of  his  inaugu- 
ration, publicly  make  and  subscribe  a  solemn  declaration  of 
his  faith  in  Divine  Revelation,  and  in  the  fundamental  and 
distinguishing  doctrines  of  the  Gospel  as  expressed  in  the 
following  Creed,  which  is  supported  by  the  infallible  Revela- 
tion which  God  constantly  makes  of  Himself  in  his  works  of 
creation,  providence,  and  redemption,  namely :  — 

"  I  believe  that  there  is  one,  and  hut  one,  .  .  .  living  and 
true  God ;  that  the  ivord  of  G-od,  .  .  .  contained  in  the 
Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  Neiv  Testament,^  is  the  only  perfect 
rule  of  faith  and  practice  ;  that  agreeably  to  those  Scriptures 
God  is  a  Spirit,  infinite,  eternal,  and  unchangeable  in  his  being, 
wisdom,  power,  holiness,  justice,  goodness,  and  truth;  that  in 
the  Godhead  .  .  .  are  three  Persons,  the  Father,  the  Son, 
and  the  Holy  Ghost ;  and  that  these  Three  are  One  God,  the 
same  in  substance,  equal  in  power  and  glory ;  that  God  cre- 
ated man  .  .  .  after  his  own  image,  in  knowledge,  righteousness, 
and  holiness ;  that  the  glory  of  God  is  man's  chief  end,  the 
enjoyment  of  God  his  supreme  happiness  ;  that  this  enjoy- 
ment is  derived  solely  from  conformity  of  heart  to  the  moral 
character  and  will  of  God  ;  that  Adam,  the  federal  head  and 

1  S.  C,  Testaments. 


166 

representative  of  the  human  race,  was  placed  in  a  state  of 
probation,  and  that  in  consequence  of  his  disobedience  all 
his  descendants  were  constituted  sinners ;  that  by  nature 
every  man  is  personally  depraved,  destitute  of  holiness, 
unlike  and  opposed  to  God ;  and  that  previously  to  the 
renewing  agency  of  the  Divine  Spirit  all  his  moral  actions 
are  adverse  to  the  character  and  glory  of  God  ;  that  being 
morally  incapable  of  recovering  the  image  of  his  Creator, 
which  was  lost  in  Adam,  every  man  is  justly  exposed  to 
eternal  damnation  ;  so  that,  except  a  man  be  born  again  he 
cannot  see  the  kingdom  of  God ;  that  God,  .  .  .  of  his  mere 
good  pleasure,  from  all  eternity,  elected  some  to  everlasting 
life,  and  that  he  entered  into  a  covenant  of  grace  to  deliver 
them  out  of  this  state  of  sin  and  misery  .  ,  .  hy  a  Redeemer ; 
that  the  only  Redeemer  of  the  elect  is  the  eternal  Son  of  God, 
who  for  this  purpose  became  man,  and  .  .  .  continue^  to  be 
God  and  man  in  two  distinct  natures  and  one  perso7i  forever  ; 
that  Christ  as  our  Redeemer  executeth  the  office  ^  of  a  Prophet, 
.  .  .  Priest,  and  .  .  .  King ;  that  agreeably  to  the  covenant 
of  redemption  the  Son  of  God,  and  he  alone,  by  his  suffering 
and  death,  has  made  atonement  for  the  sins  of  all  men  ;  that 
repentance,  faith,  and  holiness  are  the  personal  requisites  in 
the  Gospel  scheme  of  salvation  ;  that  the  righteousness  of 
Christ  is  the  only  ground  of  a  sinner's  Justification  ;  that  this 
righteousness  is  received  through  faith,  and  that  this  faith  jg 
the  gift  of  God ;  so  that  our  salvation  is  wholly  of  grace  ; 
that  no  means  whatever  can  change  the  heart  of  a  sinner 
and  make  it  holy ;  that  regeneration  and  sanctification  are 
effects  of  the  creating  and  renewing  agency  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  and  that  supreme  love  to  God  constitutes  the  essential 
difference  between  saints  and  sinners  ;  that,  by  convincing  us 
of  our  sin  and  misery,  enlightening  our  minds,  .  .  .  working 
faith  in  us,  and  renewing  our  wills,^  the  Holy  Spirit  makes  us 
partakers  of  the  benefits  of  redemption,  and  that  the  .  .  . 
ordinary  means  by  which  these  benefits  are  communicated  to 
us  are  the  Word,  sacraments,  and  prayer;  that  repentance 
unto  life,  faith  to  feed  upon  Christ,  love  to   God,  and  new 

1  S.  C,  offices.  2  s.  C,  will. 


167 

obedience  are  the  appropriate  qualifications  for  the  Lord's 
Supper^  and  that  a  Christian  Church  ought  to  admit  no 
person  to  its  holy  communion  before  he  exhibit  credible 
evidence  of  his  godly  sincerity ;  that  perseverance  in  holi- 
ness is  the  only  method  of  making  our  calling  and  election 
sure,  and  that  the  final  perseverance  of  saints,  though  it  is 
the  effect  of  the  special  operation  of  God  on  their  hearts, 
yet  necessarily  implies  their  own  watchful  diligence ;    that 

they  who  are  effectually  called  do  in  this  life  partake  of  justifi- 
cation, adoption,  ^^^^^  sanctification  and  the  several  benefits  tvhich 
.  .  .  do  either  accompany  or  flow  from  them ;  ^^lat  ^Jiq  soids 
of  believers  are  at  their  death  made  perfect  in  holiness,  and 
do  immediately  pass  into  glory;  ^"^^  their  bodies,  being  still 
united  to  Christ,  ""^'^^^  at  the  resurrection'^^  .  .  .  raised  up  to 
glory,  and  that  the  saints  will  be  made  perfectly  blessed  in  the 
full  enjoyment  of  God  to  all  eternity;  but  that  the  wicked 
will  awake  to  shame  and  everlasting  contempt,  and  with 
devils  be  plunged  into  the  lake  that  burneth  with  fire  and 
brimstone  for  ever  and  ever.  I  moreover  believe  that  God, 
according  to  the  counsel  of  his  own  loiUand  for  his  own  glory ^ 
hath  foreordained  whatsoever  comes  to  j9ass,and  that  all  beings 
actions,  and  events,  both  in  the  natural  and  moral  world,  are 
under  his  providential  direction  ;  that  God's  decrees  perfectly 
consist  with  human  liberty,  God's  universal  agency  with  the 
agency  of  man,  and  man's  dependence  with  his  accountabil- 
ity ;  that  man  has  understanding  and  corporeal  strength  to 
do  all  that  God  requires  of  him,  so  that  nothing  but  the 
sinner's  aversion  to  holiness  prevents  his  salvation ;  that  it  is 
the  prerogative  of  God  to  bring  good  out  of  evil,  and  that  he 
will  cause  the  wrath  and  rage  of  wicked  men  and  devils  to 
praise  him ;  and  that  all  the  evil  which  has  existed,  and  will 
forever  exist,  in  the  moral  system,  will  eventually  be  made 
to  promote  a  most  important  purpose  under  the  wise  and 
perfect  administration  of  that  Almighty  Being  who  will  cause 
all  things  to  work  for  his  own  glory,  and  thus  fulfil  all  his 
pleasure.  And,  furthermore,  I  do  solemnly  promise  that  I 
will  open  and  explain  the  Scriptures  to  my  Pupils  with 
integrity  and  faithfulness  ;  that  I  will  maintain  and  inculcate 


168 

the  Christian  faith  as  expressed  in  the  Creed  by  me  now 
repeated,  together  with  all  the  other  doctrines  and  duties  of 
our  holy  Religion,  so  far  as  may  appertain  to  my  office, 
according  to  the  best  light  God  shall  give  me,  and  in  opposi- 
tionfnot  only  to  atheists  and  infidels,  but  to  Jews,  Papists, 
Mahometans,  Arians,  Pelagians,  Antinomians,  Arminians, 
Socinians,  Sabellians,  Unitarians,  and  Universalists,  and  to 
all  other  heresies  and  errors,  ancient  or  modern,  which  may 
be  opposed  to  the  Gospel  of  Christ  or  hazardous  to  the  souls 
of  men ;  that  b}"  my  instruction,  counsel,  and  example  I 
will  endeavor  to  promote  true  Piety  and  Godliness ;  that 
I  will  consult  the  good  of  this  Institution  and  the  peace  of 
the  Churches  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  on  all  occasions ;  and 
that  I  will  religiously  conform  to  the  Constitution  and  Laws 
of  this  Seminary,  and  to  the  Statutes  of  this  Foundation." 

It  follows  from  such  a  study  of  the  Creed  as  I  have  indi- 
cated and  from  the  application  of  the  principle  I  have  stated, 
that  where  contradiction  would  otherwise  exist  the  con- 
trolling principle  must  be  found  in  the  interjected  or  new 
statement.  The  old  cannot  fetter  the  new ;  on  the  contrary 
the  new  may  liberate  the  old. 

Take  the  article  about  "federal  head."  If  the  Creed 
must  be  taken  in  its  every  detail,  it  asserts,  as  we  have  seen 
not  figuratively  but  plainly  and  literally,  the  doctrine. of  the 
covenant  of  works.  You  cannot  take  this  theory  and  at 
the  same  time  accept  one  which  contradicts  it.  But  if  any 
one  should  arise  and  take  up  the  contention  once  so  vigorously 
pressed  against  an  Abbot  Professor  by  Dr.  Dana  and  Parsons 
Cooke  and  others,  and  insist  that  the  Catechism  and  the 
Creed  required  that  Professor  to  accept  federal  headship 
not  in  a  figurative  but  in  a  literal  sense,  and  that  for  nearly 
half  a  century  he  was  guilty  of  a  stupendous  breach  of 
trust  and  of  violating  his  repeated  solemn  promises,  a  his- 
torical interpretation  of  the  Creed  will  amply  protect  his 
good  name.  For  if  there  is,  as  is  claimed,  a  contradiction 
of  theories  in  the  Creed,  the  new  formula  has  a  superior 
power  to  the  old,  and  so  the  Professor  was  quite  in  accord 


169 

with  the  Creed  in  his  lifelong  rejection  of  federal  head- 
ship and  advocacy  of  the  theory  recognized  if  not  with 
entire  distinctness  in  the  other  portion  of  the  article,  at 
least  in  this  when  interpreted  in  the  light  of  the  promi- 
nence elsewhere  given  to  the  principle  of  personal  moral 
agency. 

Or  take  asrain  the  statement  about  a  universal  atonement. 
You  cannot  evidently  harmonize  universal  atonement  and 
limited  atonement.  Neither  can  you  find  in  the  Creed  pre- 
cisely the  later  theory  of  general  atonement  and  particular 
redemption.  The  general  atonement  of  the  Creed  is  some- 
thing wrought  out  under  the  "  Covenant  of  Redemption." 
At  the  same  time  you  cannot  deny  that  under  the  phraseol- 
ogy of  redemption  is  introduced  a  universal  atonement ;  and 
this  is  not  only  unmistakably  stated,  but  is  the  new  element, 
and  therefore  par  excellence  to  be  insisted  upon.  All  the  pre- 
vious language,  therefore,  which  embodies  the  older  theory  of 
limited  atonement  must  be  qualified  by  this  ruling  article  — 
in  other  words  the  whole  doctrine  of  the  covenant  of  grace, 
with  particular  election  and  redemption  must  be  subsumed 
under  the  doctrine  of  universal  redemption,  and  this  again, 
so  far  as  the  covenant  of  redemption  goes,  must  be  adjusted 
to  personal  responsibility  and  the  doctrine  of  retribution  for 
the 'wicked  at  the  day  of  final  judgment. 

Any  one  who  takes  the  Creed  in  this  way  comes  as  near 
as  it  is  possible  to  come  to  the  mind  of  those  who  framed  it. 
And  it  is  no  small  honor  to  these  men  that  at  the  early  date 
when  the  Creed  was  written  they  were  willing  thus  to  mod- 
ify the  traditional  Calvinism  in  the  interest  of  a  new  move- 
ment of  thought  and  to  put  two  essential  principles  of  the 
New  Divinity — Universal  Atonement  and  Personal  Agency 
—  into  the  Creed,  and  require  all  who  taught  in  the  Seminary 
to  be  faithful  to  them. 

(3).  There  is  room  for  a  progressive  interpretation  and 
systemization  of  the  truths  of  the  Creed. 

Dr.  Park  has  enunciated  the  first  and  most  important  part 
of  this  proposition.  He  says,  speaking  of  the  Hopkinsian 
founders,  "  They  were  in  favor  of  progress  in  the  interpre- 


170 

tation  of  the  Creed,  provided  that  the  progress  were  toward 
the  Hopkinsian  interpretation  of  it."  ^ 

The  Hopkinsian  elements  in  the  Creed  have  been  already 
briefly  characterized.  They  constitute  the  bulk  of  the  addi- 
tions to  the  Westminster  statements.  They  include  the 
principles  of  a  universal  atonement  and  personal  agency. 

But  who  will  presume  to  say  that  these  great  principles 
had  accomplished  all  their  service  for  theology  when  they 
were  put  into  the  Creed,  or  at  the  close  of  any  later  period 
in  the  history  of  the  Seminary?  Who  will  doubt  that  the 
influence  they  already  have  exerted  on  the  interpretation  of 
other  doctrines  mentioned  in  the  Creed  must  go  on? 

Historical  interpretation  gives  us  first  the  Creed  in  its 
meaning  as  understood  by  its  framers :  it  also  gives  us  the 
Creed  as  it  proves  to  be  a  living  fountain  for  others  who  re- 
ceive it.  No  Creed  is  ever  estimated  aright  or  interpreted 
aright,  until  the  principles  in  it  which  were  vital  to  the 
authors  of  it  are  understood  in  their  vitality,  and  vitality 
means  always  growth. 

The  other  portion  of  my  remark  is  no  less  true  and  im- 
portant. The  Creed  admits  of  a  progressive  systematization 
of  doctrine.  I  think  it  incites  to  such  progress.  It  makes  no 
attempt  at  systematic  statement.  It  aims  rather  to  enumer- 
ate the  fundamental  and  distinguishing  doctrines  of  the  GosjDel. 
Any  work  of  systemizing  is  left  to  others.  But  its  enumera- 
tion is  the  fruit  of  systemizing ;  and  a  historical  interpretation, 
bringing  to  light  its  distinctive  characteristics,  shows  how 
the  inherited  system  is  already  modified,  and  how  further 
changes  are  prophesied. 

Put  into  the  creed  of  old  Calvinism,  universal  atonement, 
universal  free  moral  agency,  a  higher  conception  of  person- 
ality, and  the  system  cannot  remain  what  it  was.  The  Hop- 
kinsian founders  were  determined  it  should  not,  and  the 
history  of  the  Seminary  proved  they  were  right. 

What  a  historical  interpretation  most  emphatically  suggests 
is  the  line  along  which  this  progress  will  move  —  what  the 
direction   of  the   systemizing   process  will   be.     It   is   from 

1  The  Associate  Creed,  p.  &1. 


171 

the  formal  to  the  real ;  from  power  to  character,  from  work  to 
person.  So  it  has  been  in  the  entire  history  of  theology  as 
cultivated  at  Andover.  Federalism  gave  way  to  the  reality 
of  a  divine  constitution,  to  laws  of  heredity  and  ethical  re- 
sponsibility. The  work  of  Christ  becomes  more  and  more 
connected  with  his  Person,  the  government  of  God  with  his 
character.  The  Creed  opens  the  way  to  a  more  and  more 
Christian  conception  of  God  and  to  a  systemizing  of  all 
religious  truth  under  this  inspiration  and  with  this  centre. 
A  Christocentric  Theology  —  not  a  theology  that  centres  in 
what  is  commonly  understood  by  the  words  historic  Christ, 
but  one  which  centres  in  God  as  revealed  in  Christ  —  is  just 
as  admissible  under  the  Creed  at  Andover  as  in  any  Church 
or  School.  For  the  Seminary  Creed  does  not  attempt  to  con- 
struct a  completed  system,  nor  to  point  out  and  prescribe  in 
what  the  ultimate  principle  of  the  several  truths  it  requires 
is  to  be  found.  The  new  elements  are  naturally  thrown  into 
special  prominence,  but  they  exclude  nothing  which  is  con- 
sistent with  them.  An  experienced  eye  detects  at  once  in 
this  symbol  the  Creeds  of  Nicaea  and  Constantinople,  the 
Creed  of  Chalcedon,  the  Augsburg  Confession  and  the  West- 
minster Standards,  as  well  as  the  "improvements "  of  Ed- 
wards and  Hopkins.  And  taking  the  whole  into  account  it 
will  be  found  to  be  a  truer  order  and  conception  of  its  teach- 
ing to  make  the  main  historic  root  and  stem  of  all  Christian 
Theology  its  root  and  trunk  rather  than  some  one  of  its  fruit- 
ful branches.  Calvin  had  a  true  instinct  when  he  arranged 
the  topics  of  Christian  faith,  in  the  first  edition  of  his  Insti- 
tutes, according  to  the  scheme  of  the  Apostles''  Creed. 

(4).  The  truths  of  the  Seminary  Creed  may  be  adjusted  to 
a  larger  knowledge  and  life  than  were  open  to  its  framers. 
A  historical  study  and  interpretation  of  the-  Creed  shows 
that  these  truths  came  to  these  men  as  living  and  fruitful 
principles,  and  it  is  of  the  very  nature  of  such  truths  to  find 
new  application  and  service  in  new  forms. 

It  is  one  of  the  constant  surprises  to  a  student  of  the 
intellectual  and  moral  histor}^  of  man  to  find  how  differently 
a  system,  which  has  been  superseded,  appears  when  it  is  ap- 


172  * 

proached  from  the  other  side  and  followed  through  its  period 
of  conflict  to  the  time  when  it  wins  its  victory,  and  for  this 
reason  passes  more  and  more  out  of  sight.  Its  moving  prin- 
ciples are  not  thus  lost,  rather  they  are  now  appropriated 
and  assimilated  and  become  a  part  of  the  life  and  working 
power  of  the  Church.  What  if  a  man  sees  a  larger  truth 
in  election  than  individual  salvation,  is  he  denying  his  Cal- 
vinistic  creed?  What  if  he  discern,  that  the  principle  of 
probation,  on  the  basis  of  atonement,  when  once  admitted, 
will  not  cramp  itself  to  the  meagre  knowledge  men  had  a 
hundred  years  ago  of  the  perishing  millions  of  Africa  and 
Asia?  Does  he  abandon  this  principle  because  he  trusts  it? 
What  if  Christianity  seems  to  him  more  and  more  to  be  the 
key  to  history,  more  and  more  evidently  to  mean  the  powers 
of  recovery  which  God  is  pouring  into  the  growing  life  of 
the  ages,  and  so  with  a  simpler  faith  than  ever  before  he 
turns  to  the  Cross  and  the  Incarnation  as  the  master  light 
of  all  his  seeing,  does  he  thereby  renounce  his  connection  with 
men  who  could  not  stop  when  they  had  written  the  article 
upon  the  doom  of  the  wicked,  but  added  a  new  close  to  their 
Creed  in  this  stately  and  comprehensive  confession  :  "  (I 
believe)  that  it  is  the  prerogative  of  God  to  bring  good  out 
of  evil,  and  that  he  will  cause  the  wrath  and  rage  of  wicked 
men  to  praise  Him  ;  and  that  all  the  evil  which  has  existed, 
and  which  will  forever  exist  in  the  moral  system  will  event- 
ually be  made  to  promote  a  most  important  purpose  under  the 
wise  and  perfect  administration  of  that  Almighty  Being  who 
will  cause  all  things  to  work  for  His  own  glory,  and  thus  fulfil 
all  His  pleasure  "  ? 

When  the  controversy  began,  whose  outcome  is  the  present 
trial,  an  editorial  in  the  Congregationalist  described  the  Semi- 
nary Creed,  with  the  Visitorial  system,  "  as  a  complicated  and 
iron-bound  endeavor  to  anchor  the  orthodoxy  of  the  future 
as  by  chain  cable  to  one  of  its  particular  phases  in  the  past." 
Thl^  issue  thus  made  in  the  beginning  is  the  real  question  at 
the  end.  It  is  a  testing  question  for  you,  Mr.  President  and 
Gentlemen,  as  well  as  for  me.  You  are  on  trial  no  less  than 
I.     The  Seminary  is  on  trial.     Is  it  committed  to  the  main- 


173 

tenance  of  transient  opinion,  or  is  there  a  truer  interpreta- 
tion of  its  Creed  ?  Is  your  office  like  that  of  a  tither  of 
mint,  anise  and  cummin,  or  are  you  interpreters  of  a  reli- 
gious Creed  whose  words  are  to  be  understood  in  their  con- 
nections with  the  life  of  the  Church  and  with  Him  whose 
teaching  is  Spirit  and  life  ? 

I  plead  for  no  license  of  interpretation,  for  no  violation  of 
any  just  law  of  interpretation,  for  no  departure  from  the 
natural,  grammatical,  historic  meaning  of  terms  and  phrases 
—  but  I  ask  for  breadth,  insight  and  justice.  I  do  not  ask 
you  to  make  the  Creed  utter  what  we  might  suppose  its 
framers  would  say  were  they  living  now,  but  did  not  because 
they  flourished  nearly  a  century  ago  —  ita  Lex  scripta  est. 
This  is  the  rule.  But  finding  out  what  it  says,  I  ask  you  to 
interpret  it  as  a  whole,  to  admit  the  impossibility  of  making 
every  article  in  its  obligation  complete  in  itself,  or  any 
phrase  literally  binding  which  is  traditional  and  contradictory 
to  what  is  new  in  the  Creed  and  therefore  controlling,  and  I 
especially  ask  your  attention  to  the  facts  that  at  the  begin- 
ning of  my  acceptance  of  the  Creed  I  am  reminded  of  God's 
constant  revelation  of  Himself,  and  near  its  close  I  make  this 
solemn  promise,  that  I  will  teach  the  Christian  faith  as  ex- 
pressed in  the  Creed  .  .  together  with  the  other  doctrines 
and  duties  of  our  holy  religion,  so  far  as  may  appertain  to 
my  office,  according  to  the  best  light  God  shall  give 
ME.  I  have  tried  to  follow  this  light.  Until  these  recent 
unhappy  disputes  I  have  never  heard  it  questioned  at  Andover 
but  that  the  Creed  could  be  taken  on  the  principles  I  have 
stated.  I  came  with  the  understanding  that  it  was  thus  lib- 
erally interpreted  and  administered.  I  supposed  such  a 
policy  to  be  as  much  a  recognized  part  of  the  institution  as 
having  a  library  or  daily  prayers.  I  believe  that  it  alone 
really  fulfils  the  true  intention  of  the  Founders.  Among  my 
reasons  for  such  a  faith  are  these  : 

1.  The  Seminary  was  organized  and  its  Creed  drawn  to  be  a 
means  of  union  of  the  various  parties,  or  as  they  were  called, 
denominations,  of  Orthodox  Congregationalists  then  existing. 
Few  realize  how  many  and  deep  were  the  divisions  in  those 


174 

days — leaving  out  of  account  the  great  schism  which  was 
hastening  —  how  they  fomented  jealousies  and  suspicions 
and  separated  brethren  into  cliques  and  factions  and  arrayed 
them  as  supporters  of  this  periodical  or  that,  and  even  of  dif- 
ferent missionary  organizations.  The  necessity  of  union  was 
paramount  in  the  minds  of  the  leading  men  who  founded  the 
Seminary.  It  appears  abundantly  in  their  published  corre- 
spondence, and  will  not  I  presume  be  disputed.  Dr.  Bacon 
at  the  Semi-Centennial  of  the  Seminary  expressed  the  com- 
mon and  undisputed  opinion  when  he  characterized  the 
establishment  of  the  Seminary  as  "  an  epoch  in  the  history  of 
New  England  theology,"  and  added  "  It  was  founded,  not 
for  the  special  interest  of  any  one  locality  or  district,  nor  for 
the  special  system  of  any  theological  discoverer,  but  for  the 
common  interest  of  the  churches,  and  for  the  common  ortho- 
doxy of  Massachusetts  and  New  England.  It  was  pledged 
at  the  outset  to  a  large  and  tolerant  orthodoxy,  as  distin- 
guished from  the  intolerance  and  contentiousness  by  which 
the  little  cliques  and  parties  that  arise  in  a  particular  locality 
and  around  a  particular  great  man  are  too  often  character- 
ized."^ Unless  there  can  be  room  in  its  Faculty  for  men  who 
are  loyal  to  what  Dr.  Bacon  calls  "the  common  orthodoxy  of 
Massachusetts  and  New  England  "  (by  whicli  he  does  not 
mean  the  ordinary  opinion,  or  that  of  a  majority),  but  who 
differ  from  others  of  their  brethren  as  Dr.  Stiles  differed  from 
Dr.  Hopkins,  or  Emmons  from  Burton,  or  French  from  Spring, 
all  of  whom  Dr.  Bacon  regards  as  within  the  purpose  of  the 
Creed,^  the  Seminary  fails  to  fulfil  the  object  for  which  it 
was  founded. 

2.  The  general  structure  of  the  Creed  and  the  clauses  re- 
specting God's  constant  revelation  and  the  promise  which 
implies  new  light,  favor  the  same  conclusion. 

3.  The  Constitution  of  the  Seminary  implies  throughout  the 
faith  of  the  Founders  in  the  advancement  of  religious  knowl- 
edge.    It  bears   throughout   the  impress  of  the  broad   and 

1  Memorial  of  the  Fiftieth  Anniversary,  Andover  :  Published  by  Warren  F. 
Draper,  1859,  p.  101.     See  also  The  Panoplist  IV.  pp.  372,  373. 

2  Memorial,  p.  99. 


175 

liberal  mind  of  Dr.  Pearson,  as  well  as  of  the  generosity  and 
public  spirit  of  the  donors.  It  was  founded  to  increase  "  the 
number  of  learned  and  able  Defenders  of  the  Gospel  of  Christ 
as  well  as  of  orthodox,  pious,  and  zealous  Ministers  of  the 
New  Testament."  A  three  years'  residence  was  deemed  "a 
period  scarcely  sufficient  for  acquiring  that  fund  of  knowl- 
edge which  is  necessary  for  a  Minister  of  the  Gospel."  Greek 
and  Hebrew  were  made  obligatory  through  the  course.  Pro- 
vision was  made  bv  which  new  foundations,  whether  chairs 
of  instruction  or  scholarships,  should  be  increased.  The  cur- 
riculum sketched  at  the  outset  is  larger  than  has  yet  been 
realized.  A  theological  university,  exceeding  any  thing  before 
known,  was  in  mind.  There  was  threatening  what  was  re- 
garded as  a  great  religious  defection.  It  was  to  be  met  not 
simply  with  religious  zeal  and  asserted  authority  of  revela- 
tion, but  with  all  available  weapons  of  reason  and  learning. 
A  perusal  of  Mr.  Abbot's  will  by  which  the  Seminary  re- 
ceived a  most  munificent  bequest  will  satisfy  any  reader  of 
the  generous  purposes  of  knowledge  with  which  the  institu- 
tion was  started.  But  is  it  possible  to  suppose  that  all  this 
was  done  in  the  expectation  that  there  would  be  no  advance- 
ment in  the  understanding  of  truth,  or  that  men  would  not 
be  allowed,  while  holding  fast  to  the  principles  of  the  Creed, 
to  put  them  in  new  relations  and  gain  new  results? 

What  actually  was  done  is  well  known  in  the  case  of  Pro- 
fessor Stuart.  His  friends  were  at  times  anxious  lest  he  was 
verging  to  Sabellianism  or  rationalism,  and  he  was  always 
under  fire,  but  Mr.  Bartlet  went  on  with  his  remittances, 
and  when  once  a  Committee  of  the  Trustees  remonstrated 
at  certain  offences  committed  in  the  first  edition  of  his  com- 
mentary on  Romans,  Professor  Stuart  replied  that  he  consid- 
ered the  interference  "  inquisitorial,"  and  this  ended  the 
matter.  He  taught  in  variance  from  the  Creed  all  his  life  on 
"  The  Eternal  Sonship,"  and  if,  as  I  suppose  to  be  true,  his 
opinion  is  now  generally  rejected,  this  also  shows  the  wisdom 
of  trusting  to  the  power  of  truth  in  such  matters. 

4.  The  character  of  the  advisers  of  the  Associate  Founders, 
their  humility,  and  their  faith  in  doctrinal  progress,  the  school 


176 

of  theology  to  which  they  belonged,  concur  to  the  same 
result.  I  have  spoken  thus  far  of  the  so-called  Origmal 
Founders  particularly,  but  not  exclusively,  for  the  Associate 
Foundation  became  a  part  of  one  and  the  same  institution. 

I  turn  now  to  the  Hopkinsians.  They  had  the  spirit  of 
their  great  leader  whose  words  I  will  qaote  from  the  memoir 
by  Dr.  Park. 

"  When  tired,"  sa3's  his  biographer,  "  of  hearing  the  stale  charge 
that  he  had  started  new  doctrines  into  Kfe,  he  responds  :  '  I  now 
declare,  I  had  much  rather  pubUsh  New  Divinity  than  any  other. 
And  the  more  of  this  the  better,  —  if  it  be  but  true.  Nor  do  I 
think  any  doctrine  can  be  "  too  strange  to  be  true."  I  should 
think  it  hardly  worth  while  to  write,  if  I  had  nothing  new  to  saj-.' 
In  his  '  Animadversions  on  Mr.  Hart's  Late  Dialogue,'  Hopkins  al- 
ludes to  his  having  been  falsely  accused  of  propounding  new 
theories,  and  replies  :  '  This  he  [Mr.  Hart]  has  done  over  and  over 
again,  about  a  dozen  times.  He  calls  them  "  new  doctrines,"  "  a 
new  system  or  rather  chaos  of  divinity,"  "  upstart  errors,"  etc. 
And  the  teachers  of  them  he  calls  "new  apostles,"  "new 
divines,"  "  new  teachers,"  etc. — If  this  were  true,  I  see  not  what 
reason  there  would  be  to  make  such  a  great  outcry  about  it. 
There  is  really  no  evidence  against  these  doctrines.  It  is  at  least 
possible,  that  there  is  some  truth  contained  in  the  Bible,  which  has 
not  been  commonly  taught ;  3'ea,  has  never  been  mentioned  b}' 
any  writer  since  the  apostles  ;  and  whenever  that  shall  be  dis- 
covered and  brought  out,  it  will  be  new.  And  who  linows  but  that 
some  such  7iew  discoveries  may  be  made  in  our  day?  If  so,  un- 
happy and  very  guilty  will  be  the  man  who  shall  attempt  to  fright 
people,  and  raise  their  prejudices  against  it,  b}'  raising  the  cry  of 
New  Divinity.  Indeed,  I  question  whether  an  author  can,  with 
a  riglit  temper  and  view,  take  this  method  to  run  any  doctrine 
down,  b}'  appealing  to  the  prejudices  of  people,  and  keeping  up 
a  constant  loud  cry  of  new,  upstart  divinity.'  "  ^ 

"  '  There  is  no  reason  to  doubt,'  he  says  in  his  seventy-second 
^•ear,  '  that  light  will  so  increase  in  the  church,  and  men  will  be 
raised  up,  who  will  ]nake  such  advances  in  opening  the  Scripture 
and  in  the  knowledge  of  divine  truth,  that  what  is  now  done  and 

1  Works  of  SamTiel  Hopkins,  D.D.  Boston,  Doctrinal  Tract  and  Book 
Society,  1852.    Vol.  I.,  pp.  177,  178. 


177 

written  will  be  so  far  superseded  as  to  appear  imperfect  and  incon- 
siderable, compared  with  that  superior  light,  with  which  the  church 
will  then  be  blessed.'  "  ^ 

It  should  go  without  saying  that  if  a  Professor,  following 
the  best  light  which  dawns  upon  liira,  finds  himself  wander- 
ing away  from  the  Creed  he  is  not  to  set  up  his  private  judg- 
ment and  conceal  his  divergence,  nor  if  the  variation  puts 
him  in  contradiction  to  the  essential  principles  and  the  intent 
of  the  Creed  do  I  raise  any  question  as  to  his  duty  or  yours. 

What  I  maintain,  and  where  I  abide  in  good  conscience  is 
this :  I  have  not  thus  violated  my  obligations  under  the 
Creed,  even  upon  a  close  and  technical  construction  of  them. 
And  if,  as  I  also  maintain,  the  Creed  is  a  summary  of  princi- 
ples which  are  to  be  applied  and  developed  from  generation 
to  generation,  I  have  done  something  far  better  and  more 
faithful  than  a  literal  repetition  of  them  —  I  have  used  them, 
and  with  them  have  confronted  present  great  and  important 
questions  of  religious  thought  and  life. 

What  is  proposed  to  be  done?  To  remove,  directly  or 
indirectly  almost,  perhaps  quite,  an  entire  Faculty,  and  to 
proclaim  to  the  world  that  an  institution  started  as  was 
Andover  Seminary  has  outlived  its  usefulness.  Not  that  men 
cannot  be  found  to  fill  its  chairs  who  may  think  that  they 
are  taking  the  Creed  literally  when  they  confess  at  once  a 
limited  atonement  and  an  unlimited  one,  a  federal  headship 
which  is  figurative  and  an  eternal  Sonship  which  is  temporal. 
Not  that  others  still,  if  necessary,  cannot  be  discovered  who 
hold  that  when  Paul  says,  "  as  many  as  have  sinned  without 
law  shall  also  perish  without  law,"  he  cuts  off  all  hope  for 
every  heathen,  and  no  offence  need  be  taken  at  reading 
the  word  all  into  the  Creed  when  it  says  that  the  effect- 
ually called  receive  the  blessings  of  salvation  in  this  life, 
or  who  still  adhere  to  the  theology  of  the  covenants  —  but 
it  will  indeed  be  a  new  Andover  when  such  principles  of 
interpretation  of  the  Cieed  are  sanctioned.  And  how  long 
can  such  a  method  of  administration  be  perpetuated  ?  If 
indeed  the  language  of  the  instrument  were  perfectlj^  plain, 

1  Ibid.,  p.  231. 


178 

the  argument  from  consequences  would  be  irrelevant  here. 
But  instead  of  a  perspicuous  utterance  there  is  at  most 
silence,  while  for  a  liberal  interpretation  are  the  deep  sug- 
gestions of  its  great  doctrines  of  atonement  and  moral 
agency,  of  the  Incarnation  and  an  infinitely  wise  and  benev- 
olent and  sovereign  God,  with  his  purpose  binding  together 
the  ages,  and  the  declaration  of  God's  larger  and  constant 
revelation  in  his  works,  and  the  solemn  promise  exacted  to 
look  for  light,  and  the  happy  auguries  and  peaceful  promise 
and  generous  surroundings  of  its  birth,  and  the  expectation 
of  the  Founders  that  they  had  established  an  institution 
which  should  continue  to  bless  the  world  so  long  as  the  sun 
and  moon  shall  endure. 

I  am  conscious  of  no  desire  paramount  to  the  good  of 
the  Seminary.  The  finger  of  scorn  is  pointed  at  what  is 
claimed  to  be  the  small  support  gained  for  the  opinions  ex- 
pressed in  Progressive  Orthodoxy.  We  do  not  set  up  those 
opinions  as  a  standard  for  Andover  Professors.  Some  of  our 
colleagues,  esteemed  and  beloved,  may  not  hold  them.  I 
really  do  not  know  where  they  all  stand.  And,  besides,  it  is 
a  new  thing  for  men  who  demand  fidelity  to  the  Hopkinsian 
Founders  to  make  the  degree  of  present  acceptance  of  a  tenet 
the  test  of  its  truth  !  Writing  in  his  seventy-fifth  year  Dr. 
Samuel  Hopkins  said, 

"About  forty  years  ago  there  were  but  few,  perhaps  not  more  than 
four  or  five,  who  espoused  the  sentiments  which  since  have  been 
called  Edwardean  and  New  Divinity,  and,  since  after  some  improve- 
ment was  made  upon  them,  HopJcintonian  or  Hopkinsian  senti- 
ments. But  those  sentiments  have  so  spread  since  that  time 
among  ministers,  especially  those  who  have  since  come  on  the 
stage,  that  there  are  now  more  than  one  hundred  in  the  ministry, 
who  espouse  the  same  sentiments,  in  the  United  States  of  America. 
And  the  number  appears  to  be  fast  increasing,  and  these  sentiments 
appear  to  be  coming  more  and  more  into  credit,  and  are  to  be  un- 
derstood, and  the  odium  which  has  been  cast  on  them,  and  those 
who  preached  them,  is  greatly  subdued."  ^ 

1  Hopkins's  Works,  I.,  237,  238. 


179 

His  biographer  adds  that  "  the  spirit  of  the  new  Divinity 
was  in  the  hearts  of  thousands,  who  did  not  favor  it  in  all  its 
forms.  The  term  '  Hopkinsian  '  soon  became  the  common  des- 
ignation of  those  evangrelical  or  orthodox  divines  who  favored 
the  doctrines  of  general  atonement,  natural  ability,  the  active 
nature  of  all  holiness  and  sin,  and  the  Justice  of  God  in  im- 
puting to  men  none  but  their  own  personal  transgressions.  "  ^ 
That  is,  in  1756  there  were  five  clergymen  who  dared  believe 
that  men  are  not  punished  for  a  sin  they  did  not  commit,  and 
that  Christ  died  for  all  men,  and  now  I  suppose  there  are  not 
so  many  in  New  England  who  would  be  willing  to  be  known 
as  holding  the  opposite.  Universal  atonement  is  the  orthodox 
belief. 

It  is  idle  to  question  that  in  all  lands,  in  all  evangelical 
churches  to-day  the  question  of  the  personal  relation  of  Christ 
to  the  entire  race  for  which  He  died  is  receiving  an  attention 
never  before  given  to  it.  The  Church  at  large  has  never  yet 
passed  upon  it.  It  was  not  before  the  minds  of  the  authors 
of  the  Catechism  or  of  the  Seminary  Creed.  It  could  not 
be.  Providence  shapes  problems  for  the  Church.  It  puts 
this  one  before  us.  It  would  be  at  least  doubtful  whether  if 
the  Creed  contained  some  expressions  which  might  be  used 
to  exclude  the  new  doctrine  it  would  not  be  an  unwarrant- 
able use  of  an  incidental  phrase  to  make  it  interdictive  and 
decisive  of  a  question  out  of  the  purview  of  the  framers. 
Fortunately  there  is  no  such  difficulty  to  be  settled.  The 
Creed  admits  by  its  silence  and  by  its  principles,  at  least  as 
a  legitimate  inquiry,  all  that  has  been  contended  for  by  me 
in  the  Revieiv  and  in  Progressive  Orthodoxy. 

I  offer  this  as  a  complete  and  full  justification  against  the 
charges  of  the  complainants. 

1  Ibid.,  p.  238. 


isroTE. 

Thk  following  are  the  particular  charges  which  are  specially  consid- 
ered, or  referred  to,  in  the  foregoing  argument  :  — 

Page  103. 
"1.    That  the  Bible  is  not  '  the  only  perfect  rule  of  faith  and  practice,' 
but  is  fallible  and  untrustworthy  even  in  some  of  its  religious  teachings." 

Page  114. 
"2.    That  Christ  in  the  days  of  his  humiliation  was  a  finite  being, 
limited  in  all  his  attributes,  capacities  and  attainments;  in  other  words, 
was  not  '  (iod  and  Man.'  " 

Page  114. 

"  3.  That  no  man  has  power  or  capacity  to  repent  without  knowledge 
of  God  in  Christ." 

Page  US. 

"4.  That  mankind,  save  as  they  have  received  a  knowledge  of  'the 
historic  Christ,'  are  not  sinners,  or,  if  they  are,  not  of  such  sinfulness  as 
to  be  in  danger  of  being  lost.      ('  Progressive  Orthodoxy.,^  p.  55.)  " 

Page  119. 

"  5.  That  no  man  can  be  lost  without  having  had  knowledge  of  Christ. 
('  Progressive  Orthodoxy,^  pp.  63,  64.)  " 

Page  119. 

"  6.  That  the  atonement  of  Christ  consists  e.ssentially  and  chiefly  in 
his  becoming  identified  with  the  human  race  through  his  incarnation,  in 
order  that,  by  his  union  with  men,  he  might  endow  them  with  the  power 
to  repent,  and  thus  impart  to  them  an  g,ugmented  value  in  the  view  of 
God,  and  so  render  God  propitious  towards  them." 

Page  120. 

"  7.    That  the  Trinity  is  modal,  or  monarchian,  and  not  a  Trinity  of 

Persons." 

Page  125. 

"  8.  That  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  chiefly  confined  to  the  sphere 
of  historic  Christianity." 

Page  125. 

"  9.    That  without  the  knowledge  of  God  in  Christ,  men  do  not  deserve 

the  punishment  of  the  law,  and  that  therefore  their  salvation   is  not 

'  wholly  of  grace.'  " 

Page  125. 

"  10.  That  faith  ought  to  be  scientific  and  rational  rather  than 
scriptural." 

Page  127. 

"  11.  That  there  is,  and  will  be,  probation  after  death  for  all  men  who 
do  not  decisively  reject  Christ  during  the  earthly  life  ;  and  that  this 
should  be  emphasized,  made  influential,  and  even  central  in  systematic 
theology." 

The  "  Reply"  to  which  reference  is  made  on  page  118  and  elsewhere,  is 
the  answer  filed  by  the  respondent  with  the  Board  of  Visitors  on  Nov. 
30,  188G,  and  extensively  published  by  the  daily  press. 


TESTIMONY   OF   NEWMAN    SMYTH,    D.D. 


Q.  ■  (By  Mr.  Baldwin.)  You  are  pastor  of  the  First 
Church  in  New  Haven  ? 

A.     Yes,  sir. 

Q.     Were  you  formerly  a  student  in  Andover  Seminary  ? 

A.     I  was,  sir. 

Q.     Did  you  ever  attend  the  lectures  of  Professor  Park  ? 

A.     I  did,  sir. 

Q.  Will  you  be  kind  enough  to  tell  us  whethei'  you  recol- 
lect in  his  lectures  any  statements  which  in  any  way  attracted 
your  attention  as  varying  from  the  subordinate  parts  of  the 
Creed,  or  from  any  parts  of  the  Creed? 

Mr.  Hoar.  I  do  not  see  what  it  has  to  do  with  this  in- 
quiry, whether  Dr.  Park  has  broken  the  Creed. 

Mr.  Baldwin.  We  are  simply  pursuing  the  line  of  proof 
shown  by  our  previous  exhibits,  that  from  the  first  there  has 
been  a  large  liberty  of  opinion  at  Andover,  as  has  been  so 
fully  explained  in  the  statement  of  Dr.  Smyth. 

Mr.  HoAE,.  If  it  goes  beyond  the  Creed,  then  it  has  been 
unlawful;  and  if  it  does  not  go  be3'ond  the  Creed,  you  need 
not  prove  it,  because  we  are  perfectly  willing  to  admit  it. 

Mr.  Baldwin.     Do  you  object  to  it  ? 

Mr.  Hoar.  I  have  stated  already  my  objection.  I  do  not 
see  that  it  has  any  thing  to  do  with  the  subject  before  us. 

The  Chairman.  It  is  understood  that  it  is  intended  to 
bring  out  the  customary  principle  as  to  the  acceptance  of  the 
Creed. 

Mr.  Baldwin.     Yes. 

The  Chairman.     As  such  it  is  admissible. 

Q.     Please  state,  then,  whether  any  such  remarks  as  I  have 


182 

inquired  concerning,  were  made  by  Dr.  Park.  Take,  for  in- 
stance, the  eternal  sonship. 

A.  I  recollect  distinctl} ,  sir,  and  my  notes  of  the  lecture, 
which  are  taken  partly  in  shorthand,  show,  that  when  Pro- 
fessor Park  approached  the  doctrine  of  eternal  sonship,  he 
told  us  that  here  we  come  to  a  point  of  divergence  between 
the  old  and  the  new  divines,  and  that  the  new  divines  do  not 
assert  dogmatically  a  thing  which  should  be  asserted  figura- 
tively. 

Q.  And  in  regard  to  that  special  doctrine  did  he  use  any- 
particular  expression  signifying  his  own  view? 

A.  It  was  commonly  understood,  and  I  suppose  it  will 
not  be  denied,  that  he  affirmed  that  the  word  son  should  be 
predicated  of  Christ  in  his  humanity,  rather  than  in  his  di- 
vinity, as  denoting  the  constitution  of  Christ's  person  in  the 
incarnation  in  the  human  life.  He  also  asserted,  of  course, 
the  divine  distinction,  —  the  Logos  doctrine. 

Q.  In  regard  to  the  doctrine  of  sin,  was  there  any  diver- 
gence there  ? 

A.     I  have  not  looked  at  my  notes  on  that  point. 

Q.  Please  go  on,  then,  to  th«  time  when  you  were  elected 
a  professor  in  Andover,  and  to  your  interviews  at  that  time 
with  the  authorities  of  the  Seminary  in  regard  to  your  assent- 
ing to  the  Seminary  statutes  and  Creed. 

A.  I  had  the  pleasure  on  a  former  occasion  of  meeting  the 
Board  of  Visitors,  and  I  stated  distinctly  and  definitely  how 
I  personally  could  subscribe  to  the  Andover  Creed.  My 
memory  is  very  distinct  and  definite  upon  this  point,  and  I 
presume  the  Visitors  will  recollect  it. 

Q.     What  year  was  it,  sir  ? 

A.  The  event  made  more  impression  on  me  than  the  date  ; 
I  think  it  was  in  1882.  I  stated  that  I  could  accept  and  sub- 
scribe to  the  Andover  Creed  as  a  whole,  interpreting  its 
clauses  by  comparison  among  themselves,  and  in  accordance 
with  the  terms  of  subscription  which  I  understood  had  always 
been  the  usage  of  the  Seminary,  as  sanctioned  by  the  Board 
of  Visitors.  But  I  could  not  possibly  subscribe  to  the  Creed 
if  I  were  required  to  take  each  clause  and  each  article  by 


183 

itself.  I  instanced  one  clause  in  particular,  which  I  could  not 
take  out  of  its  connection  with  the  whole  contents  of  the 
Creed,  namely,  the  clause  relating  to  the  Federal  Headship, 
because  I  had  been  taught  by  my  instructor  in  theology,  Pro- 
fessor Park,  not  to  believe  in  that.  That  was  the  manner  in 
which  I  expressed  my  willingness  to  assent  to  the  Creed, 
heartily  and  in  good  conscience  and  frankly  as  a  whole,  and 
according  to  what  I  understood  to  be  the  recognized  principle 
of  Creed  subscription  at  Andover. 

Q.     How  was  that  statement  received  by  the  Board  ? 

A.    I  think  we  passed  on  to  the  theological  examination. 

Mr.  Baldwin.  We  shall  desire  to  read  at  the  proper  time, 
in  argument,  the  record  of  the  action  of  the  Board  of  Visit- 
ors on  Dr.  Smyth's  case,  and  from  his  written  publications. 


TESTIMONY   OF   PROFESSOR    HARRIS. 


Q.  (By  Mr.  Baldwin.)  State,  if  you  please,  Dr.  Harris, 
what  were  the  circumstances  attending  your  assent  to  the 
statutes  and  Creed  of  the  Seminary  at  the  time  of  your  re- 
ceiving the  appointment  to  the  professorship  you  now  hold. 

A.  Having  been  elected  by  the  Board  of  Trustees  to  that 
office,  a  meeting  of  the  Board  of  Visitors  was  held  in  this 
building  in  November,  1882,  at  which,  besides  the  members 
of  the  Board,  there  were  present  Mr.  Hincks,  Mr.  Taylor, 
and  myself,  all  professors-elect.  After  some  questioning  on 
the  part  of  members  of  the  Board  and  quite  full  replies  by 
us,  it  was  stated  by  myself,  I  think,  certainly  by  one  of  the 
three  professors-elect,  that  there  were  some  points  in  the 
statements  of  the  Creed  with  which  we  found  difficulty.  It 
was  proposed  that  the  Creed  should  be  read  by  the  Secretary, 
and  that  either  of  us  should  interrupt  the  reading  at  any 
point  to  indicate  our  divergence  from  the  Creed.  Mr.  lius^ 
sell,  then  the  secretary  of  the  Board,  read  the  Creed,  and  the 
interruptions  occurred  at  various  points. 

I  cannot  remember  all  of  the  objections  that  were  then 
made,  but  I  do  know  that  this  doctrine  of  the  Federal  Head- 
ship was  one,  and  that  the  statement  made  with  regard  to 
the  covenants  of  grace  and  redemption  as  implying  a  limited 
atonement,  was  another. 

At  each  point  some  member  of  the  Board,  and  as  I  remem- 
ber more  especially  Dr.  Eustis,  explained  the  sense  in  which 
these  doctrines  were  held  by  him  or  by  them,  and  could  be 
held  by  us,  showing  the  connection  of  the  doctrines  one  with 
another,  showing  the  bearing  and  meaning  of  the  Creed  as  a 
whole,  and  so  on.     I  remember  that  when  the  end  of  the 


185 

reading  and  the  explanation  had  been  reached,  I  remarked 
that  I  wished  I  could  take  Dr.  Eustis's  explanations  instead 
of  the  Creed. 

We  then  submitted  to  the  Visitors  —  I  think  I  was  the 
person  who  submitted  it  —  a  proposal  of  the  form  in  which 
we  were  willing  to  take  the  Andover  Creed,  which,  as  nearly 
as  I  remember,  was  this :  "  I  accept  "  (my  uncertainty  is  as 
to  that  word  "  accept  ")  "  this  Creed  as  expressing  substan- 
tially the  system  of  truth  taught  in  the  Holy  Scriptures." 
The  proposal  was,  to  accompany  our  signatures,  either  in 
writing  or  orall}-,  with  this  statement,  when  the  Creed  should 
be  publicly  taken.  To  this  the  president  of  the  Board  replied 
that  there  was  no  objection  to  it,  and  that  for  his  own  part, 
he  thought  it  would  have  a  good  effect  in  the  existing  state 
of  public  opinion.  I  do  not,  of  course,  quote  the  language, 
but  the  statement  in  general.  I  am  not  aware  that  the  Board 
of  Visitors  passed  any  formal  vote  in  this  matter,  but  it  was 
a  distinct  understanding,  considered  on  our  part  as  having 
somewhat  of  the  nature  of  an  agreement  with  them,  that  we 
should  take  the  Creed  under  those  conditions.  When  the 
time  of  our  induction  into  office  came,  the  Creed  was  so  taken 
by  each  of  us,  with  the  statement  which  I  have  designated, 
and,  as  we  understood,  with  the  sanction,  not  only  of  the 
Board  of  Trustees,  but  also  with  the  sanction  of  the  Board 

of  Visitors. 

Cross- Examination. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  French.)  Was  your  attention  at  that  time 
called  to  this  subject  of  future  probation  ? 

A,     Yes,  sir. 

Q.     Did  you  make  any  reply  with  reference  to  it  ? 

A.     Yes,  sir. 

Q.     Were  you  questioned  about  it  ? 

A.     I  was. 

Q.     At  that  time  ? 

A.     Yes,  sir. 

Q.     What  was  said  ? 

A.  During  the  questioning  on  the  part  of  the  members  of 
the  Board,  and  of  the  answering  on  the  part  of  the  profess- 


186 

ors,  the  question  was  raised  as  to  my  opinion  concerning,  — 
I  think  it  was  as  definite  as  this,  —  concerning  the  probation 
of  those  who  do  not  have  the  gospel.  I  am  not  certain  as  to 
that,  but,  however,  I  replied  with  regard  to  that  point,  and 
my  reply  in  substance  was  this  :  That  I  recognized  the  liberty 
of  clergymen,  and  the  liberty  of  those  who  should  take  this 
Creed  to  hold  the  opinion  that  there  might  be  for  those  who 
do  not  have  the  gospel  a  probation  after  this  life  ;  that  for 
myself  I  had  not  reached  a  definite  conclusion  concerning  it, 
that  I  had  not  accepted  it.  I  do  not  remember,  I  think,  any 
thing  more  about  that. 

Q.     That  you  had  not  at  that  time  accepted  it? 

A.  That  I  had  not  accepted  it.  I  had  emphasized,  how- 
ever, the  liberty,  not  only  of  clergymen,  but  of  those  who 
might  take  the  Creed,  to  hold  that  opinion. 


TESTIMONY   OF   PROFESSOR   HINCKS. 


Q.  (By  Mr.  Baldwin.)  Will  3^011  state  to  the  Board 
what  occurred  at  the  time  of  your  examination  and  inaugu- 
ration with  regard  to  subscription  to  the  Creed  ? 

A.  I  met  the  Board  of  Visitors  in  company  with  Professor 
Harris  and  Professor  Taylor,  as  stated  by  Professor  Harris. 
The  examination  was  conducted  by  President  Seelj'e,  who 
began  the  examination  by  asking  me  certain  questions  with 
respect  to  my  views  concerning  the  Holy  Scriptures.  These 
being  answered,  the  examination  passed  on  to  Professor 
Harris,  who  was  asked  certain  questions  concerning  Christian 
doctrine,  which  he  answered.  After  the  examination  was 
over,  the  Creed  was  read  by  one  of  the  Visitors,  as  Professor 
Harris  has  already  stated.  One  of  the  three  gentlemen  who 
were  under  examination,  expressed  inability  to  take  all  the 
statements  of  the  Creed  separately,  in  minutely  literal  inter- 
pretation, to  which  Mr.  Eustis  replied  that  they  themselves, 
the  Visitors,  did  not  take  the  Creed  verbatim  et  literatim,  and 
then  went  on  explaining  the  Creed,  as  has  been  stated  by 
Professor  Harris.  After  the  explanation  of  the  Creed  and 
our  assent  to  it  as  expounded.  Professor  Harris  made,  the 
proposal  that  we  should  employ  at  our  inauguration  the 
formula  which  he  has  already  given,  to  which  the  president 
of  the  Board  heartily  consented,  saying  that  in  view  of  the 
existhig  state  of  feeling,  he  thought  it  would  be  a  good  thing 
to  take  the  Creed  in  that  way. 

Q.     Did  you  take  it  in  that  way  ? 

A.  When  we  were  inaugurated  we  repeated  this  formula  as 
our  acceptance  of  the  Creed,  —  "I  assent  to  this  Creed  believ- 


188 

ing  that  it  substantially  contains  the  system  ot  truth  taught 
in  the  Holy  Scriptures."  That  is  as  near  as  I  can  recollect 
the  formula. 

Q.  No  exception  was  taken  by  the  Trustees  to  that 
method  ? 

A.     No,  sir. 


TESTIMONY   OF   PROFESSOR   TUCKER. 


Q.  (By  Mr.  Baldwin.)  Will  you  state,  Professor 
Tucker,  whether  any  thing  was  said  by  you  as  to  your  sub- 
scription to  the  Creed  at  the  time  of  your  induction  into 
office  ? 

A.  My  election  preceded,  I  think,  b}^  two  years  the  elec- 
tion of  the  gentlemen  who  have  testified.  I  find  this,  state- 
ment which  I  made  upon  my  subscription  to  the  Creed  July 
1,  1880.  I  did  not  meet  with  the  Board  of  Visitors  upon  my 
election,  not  having  been  notified  by  them  of  any  call  to  that 
effect.  When  I  took  the  Creed  I  took  it  reading  this  state- 
ment before  subscription :  "  The  Creed  which  I  am  about  to 
read,  and  to  which  I  shall  subscribe,  I  fully  accept  as  setting 
forth  the  truth  against  the  errors  which  it  was  designed  to 
meet.  No  confession  so  elaborate,  and  with  such  intent  may 
assume  to  be  the  final  expression  of  truth,  or  an  expression 
equally  fitted  in  language  or  tone  to  all  times." 

Crom-Eza  m  {nation. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Hoar.)  You  say  that  accompanied  your 
signature  to  the  Creed  ? 

A.  It  was  not  copied  into  the  book  ;  the  reading  of  it 
accompanied  the  signature. 

Q.  You  read  that  at  the  time  when  it  was  proposed  to  you, 
you  should  sign  the  Creed,  and  then  you  signed  the  Creed 
without  putting  down  more  than  your  name  ? 

A,     Simply  my  name. 

Q.     And  to  whom  was  this  exposition  given? 

A.  This  was  given  in  the  presence  of  the  Trustees  and 
Visitors,  so  far  as  present.  I  do  not  remember  who  were 
there  ;  it  was  a  public  inauguration. 


190 

Q.  It  was  not  a  matter  of  consultation  with  the  Visitors 
beforehand,  as  to  whether  that  would  be  all  that  the  consti- 
tution of  the  Seminary  would  require  ? 

A.  It  was  not.  I  made  the  statement  before  reading  the 
Creed,  then  read  the  Creed,  and,  no  objection  being  made, 
signed  the  Creed  after  that  statement. 

Mr.  Baldwin.     That  is  all  we  have  to  offer. 

Mr.  French.     We  have  nothing  to  offer  in  reply. 


PROFESSOR   BALDWIN'S   ARGUMENT. 


Mr.   Chairman  and  Gentlemen  of  the  Board: 

My  associates  have  requested  me  to  open  the  defence,  and 
to  say,  as  I  do  so,  that  inasmuch  as  no  opening  has  yet  been 
made  by  my  friends  on  the  other  side,  stating  the  facts  they 
intend  to  present  to  you,  we  trust  that  after  the  conclusion 
of  what  I  have  to  say,  they  will  be  kind  enough  to  open  their 
case,  so  that  my  brethren  who  follow  me  may  have  the  bene- 
fit of  knowing  what  line  of  argument  they  ought  to  meet. 

I\Ir.  Hoar.  We  have  heard  that  statement  so  often,  sir, 
that  I  think  we  had  better  repudiate  it  once  and  for  all.  We 
did  open  our  case.  Judge  French  stated  it  at  the  original 
hearing.  We  have  not  duplicated  that  opening  by  going  all 
over  it  with  the  same  three  gentlemen  again,  because  we  have 
divided  these  five  complaints,  which  were  lumped  together, 
into  five  separate  ones.  We  have  taken  for  granted  that  the 
time  which  was  spent  was  profitably  spent,  at  any  rate  to 
save  an}'  repetition.  Our  case  has  been  opened  elaborately 
and  stated.  These  gentlemen  are  charged  with  heterodoxy, 
b}'  whicli  I  understand  and  mean,  not  the  entertaining  of  any 
untrue  or  erroneous  opinions,  —  that  is  all  I  meant  when  I 
said  there  was  no  charge  of  heresy.  They  may  entertain  the 
soundest  opinions  that  ever  were  held,  the  most  progressive, 
coming  nearer  and  nearer  to  the  light,  and  approved  by  God 
and  man.  Our  position  is  that  it  is  heterodoxy,  because  the 
framers  of  this  Andover  Creed  have  required  a  certain  con- 
formity to  that  Creed;  and  the  sole  question  which  we  pre- 
sent for  your  decision   as   the  Board  of  Visitors,  is  whether 


192 

they  have  departed  substantiall}^  —  I  should  not  criticise 
very  much  all  we  have  heard  about  the  true  mode  of  looking 
at  the  Creed,  within  the  limits  of  interpretation,  consistently 
with  holding  a  more  solid  front  of  theological  belief, — 
whether  they  have  departed  from  it  or  not.  We  have  speci- 
fied the  particulars  in  which  they  have  departed  from  it,  and 
how  we  can  give  them  any  greater  information  or  understand- 
ing, I  do  not  know.  We  have  had  it  met  by  their  client  in  a 
perfectly  manly,  frank,  honorable  statement  of  what  he  con- 
ceives to  be  the  statement,  which  is  just  what  we  think  ;  and 
when  we  have  heard  all  they  say  why  our  allegation  is  not 
so,  we  propose  to  conclude  our  case,  and  we  do  not  propose 
to  mix  it  up  and  discuss  it  a  little  piece  at  a  time. 

Mr.  Baldwin.  Mr.  President  and  gentlemen,  it  was  the 
hope  of  the  pious  founders  of  Andover  Seminary  that  they 
were  constituting  what  would  be  a  centre  of  Christian  thought 
and  influence  that  would  endure  forever  and  ever ;  and  I 
think  I  may  say  that  thus  far  they  have  not  been  disap- 
pointed. They  trusted  that  learned  and  able  men  would  be 
raised  up  generation  after  generation  to  make  it  this  centre 
by  their  teaching  and  example.  It  has  been  from  its  outset 
a  centre  of  thought  and  influence  to  American  orthodoxy. 
I  think  we  may  say  that  its  teachings  have  often  had  their 
influence  across  the  sea,  and  certainly  through  the  breadth  of 
our  own  country  from  its  very  first  foundation. 

Truth  has  been  taught  at  Andover  with  a  sincerity  of  con- 
viction which  was  founded  on  a  wide  and  generous  scholar- 
ship. It  has  been  the  tradition  of  the  Seminary  that  the 
professors  should  not  content  themselves  with  the  mere 
routine  of  the  lecture  room,  but  that  they  should  publish  to 
the  world  the  fruits  of  their  thought  and  stud3^  They  have 
done  that  from  the  first.  P'rom  the  days  of  the  old  Pmioplist 
under  Professor  Woods,  and  the  Bibliotheca  Sacra  under  Pro- 
fessor Stuart  and  Professor  Phelps  and  Professor  Park  and 
their  associates,  down  to  the  Andover  Revieiv  of  to-day,  An- 
dover has  always  had  some  channel  of  its  own,  through  which 
to  communicate  to  the  public  its  best  thought. 

The  professors  have  not  always  been  in  accord  on  points 


193 

of  detail  in  tlieolos^y.  Dr.  Woods  was  not  in  accord  with 
Professor  Stuart.  There  were  dissensions  that  we  all  know 
of  when  Professor  Murdock  was  in  the  Seminary.  Professor 
Emerson  in  his  opinion  as  to  the  form  of  subscription  to  the 
Creed  and  Catechism  differed  from  some  of  his  associates, 
and  Professor  Park  differed  from  some  of  his  in  his  day. 
The  German  theology  of  Professor  Stuart  and  some  of  his 
associates  was  very  stoutly  attacked  by  others  then  connected 
with  the  Seminary,  mainl}^  I  think,  bj^  those  who  did  not 
know  the  German  language.  But  now  for  several  years  there 
has  been  at  Andover  the  most  perfect  harmony  of  fellowship 
and  feeling  among  its  faculty.  Not,  as  has  been  stated  by 
Professor  Smyth,  that  they  all  think  identically  the  same 
things  in  matters  of  detail  and  non-essentials,  but  that  they 
have  that  harmony  of  spirit,  and  that  feeling  of  a  desire  to 
stand  for  the  peace  of  the  churches  and  of  the  Seminary, 
which  is  inculcated  so  strongly  by  the  language  and  the  spirit 
of  the  statutes,  and  the  Creed  upon  which  it  is  founded. 

But  at  the  opening  of  the  year  that  is  now  drawing  to  a 
close,  one  of  the  trustees  saw  fit  to  bring  before  the  Board  of 
Trustees,  serious  accusations  against  a  number  of  the  faculty 
of  the  institution.  The  Trustees  proceeded  to  take  action 
upon  his  proposal,  but  before  they  have  gone  so  far  as  to  com- 
mence a  regular  hearing,  those  proceedings  are  dropped,  and 
Dr.  Well  man  comes  before  this  Board,  in  his  capacity  as  a 
Trustee  at  first,  (I  think  now  he  claims  only  to  act  as  an 
individual,)  and  presents  here  accusations  which  charge  upon 
five  of  the  professors,  including  the  President  of  the  faculty, 
heresies  as  to  almost  every  cardinal  feature  of  the  Christian 
faith. 

'  At  the  time  when  these  charges  were  first  preferred  before 
this  Board  last  summer,  it  will  be  recollected  that  their  form 
was  general.  The  charges  were  made,  but  there  were  no 
specifications  to  support  them.  The  charges  were  made 
against  all,  as  for  a  joint  offence  ;  and  the  charges  themselves 
were  indefinite  and  uncertain,  —  imposing  from  their  very 
uncertainty.  The  Board  required  the  complaint  to  be  di- 
vided, and  the  charges  to  be  supported  by  proper  specifica- 


194 

tions.  We  have  had  the  specifications,  and  we  have  heard 
the  evidence  adduced  in  their  support,  and  the  case  has  nar- 
rowed down  to  the  simple  compass  of  a  book  called  "•  Pro- 
gressive Orthodoxy,"  and  a  couple  of  articles  in  the  "  An- 
dover  Review." 

The  charges  had  declared  that  Professor  Smyth  "held, 
maintained,  and  taught,"  certain  heretical  doctrines.  But 
the  proof  is  wanting  that  he  has  taught  a  single  doctrine 
which  it  is  claimed  by  the  prosecutors  is  erroneous. 

Mr.  French.  I  do  not  think  you  will  find  the  word 
"taught"  in  the  charges. 

Mr.  Baldwin  (reading  from  the  complaint).  "  First,  we 
charge  that  the  said  Egbert  C.  Smyth  holds  beliefs,  has 
taught  doctrines  and  theories,  and  has  done  other  things  as 
hereinafter  enumerated,  which  are  not  in  harmony  with,  but 
antaoonistic  to  the  Constitution  and  Statutes  of  the  Semi- 
nar}',  and  the  true  intention  of  its  founders,  as  expressed  in 
those  Statutes. 

"  Secondly,  we  charge  that  the  said  Egbert  C.  Smyth  .  .  . 
is  not  a  man  of  sound  and  orthodox  principles  in  Divinity  ; 
.  .  .  but  that,  on  the  other  hand,  he  believes  and  teaches  in 
several  articles,  hereinafter  enumerated,  what  is  antagonistic 
to  the  Seminary  Creed. 

"  Thirdly,  we  charge  that  the  said  Egbert  C.  Smyth  .  .  . 
believes  and  teaches,  in  several  particulars,  hereinafter  enu- 
merated, what  is  opposed  to  the  Seminary  Creed." 

Mr.  French.  You  have  objected  that  every  one  of  these 
charges  is  too  general,  and  j^our  case  has  been  conducted 
upon  Charge  4,  and  the  specifications  under  Charge  4. 

Mr.  Baldwin.     Do  you  abandon  the  first  three  ? 

Mr.  French.     No. 

Mr.  Baldwin.  Then  three  of  your  cliarges  assert  that 
they  have  taught  things  contrary  to  the  Creed  of  the  Semi- 
nary, and  you  have  not  a  scintilla  of  proof  to  maintain  your 
accusation.  I  call  it  a  railing  accusation,  with  no  evidence 
to  support  it. 

This  solitai-y  Trustee  who  comes  before  the  Board  with 
these    charges,  extraordinary  in    their  amplitude  of   charge 


195 

and  their  povert}'-  of  proof,  is  supported  by  a  corporal's  guard 
of  individuals,  one  of  whom  is  the  editor  of  a  well-kaown 
journal  of  our  denomination,  which  holds  a  position  in  Massa- 
chusetts, in  which,  perhaps,  it  claims  to  speak  as  tlie  organ  of 
Massachusetts  Congregationalism.  The  "Andover  Review," 
published  from  the  seat  of  the  great  Congregational  Seminary 
of  Massachusetts,  might  put  forth  its  claims  to  be  considered 
the  organ  of  Massachusetts  Congregationalism.  I  have  no 
doubt  that  the  learned  gentleman  who  has  signed  these 
charges  thinks  that  his  organ  is  the  better  organ.  Each  be- 
longs to  a  separate  school  of  thinking.  One  of  these  schools, 
that  to  which  the  Congregationalist  belongs,  is  sedulous  to 
state  old  truths  in  old  forms.  The  other  school,  to  which 
the  '■'  Andover  Review  "  may  be  said  to  belong,  is  dominated  by 
the  principle  announced  by  Dr.  Hopkins,  "  I  never  want  to 
write  unless  I  have  something  new  to  say."  They  believe  in 
stating  old  truths,  but  in  stating  them,  if  they  can,  in  fresh 
lights, — lights  calculated  to  impress  them,  with  the  convic- 
tion of  freshness,  on  the  human  heart. 

To  the  editor  of  one  of  these  publications,  it  may  seem  a 
stupendous  breach  of  trust  to  clothe  a  seventeenth  century 
idea  in  a  nineteenth  century  dress.  It  may  seem  to  him 
charitable  and  Christian  to  charge  this  as- a  crime  hardly 
equalled  by  embezzlements  and  forgeries,  in  an  age  not  with- 
out ma!]}'  examples  of  such  offences.  But  my  client  has 
fought  no  battle  in  the  newspaj^ers.  If  his  former  pupils 
have  come  before  the  public  through  the  press  with  an  indig- 
nant denial  that  they  ever  heard  from  his  lips  any  of  the 
doctrines  imputed  to  him  by  the  prosecutors,  it  has  been 
done  entirely  without  the  knowledge  or  approval  or  assent  of 
tlie  respondents,  or  any  of  them.  We  have  preferred  to 
meet  our  accusers  face  to  face  in  this  presence,  and  utter  our 
defence  here. 

Progressive    Orthodoxy,  then,  and   the    two    articles    from 
the  "  Andover  Review,"  are  claimed  to  be  contrary  to  the 
obligations  imposed  upon    Prof.  Smyth  by  the    statutes   of" 
his    foundation.      We    say    that    they    are    not ;    they    say 
that   they   are.     And    here    is    the    precise    question  which 


196 

Judge  Hoar  has  stated   is   before   the  Visitors,  and  which 
we  accept. 

The  revelation  of  God's  ways  to  men,  say  these  Statutes, 
is  twofold.  It  is  given  by  the  Scriptures,  and  it  is  given  in 
the  works  of  God.  This  idea  that  a  progressive  and  con- 
stant revelation  is  being  made  of  the  divine  character  by  the 
works  of  God,  from  year  to  year  and  age  to  age,  was  so  dear 
to  the  founders  of  the  professorship  which  Dr.  Smyth  holds, 
that  they  repeat  it  twice  in  their  additional  statutes,  on  pages 
26  and  27.  "•  The  professor,"  they  say,  "  shall,  agreeably  to 
the  permanent  Creed  hereinafter  mentioned,  faithfully  teach 
that  revealed  Holy  Religion  only  which  God  constantly 
teaches  men  by  His  glorions  works  of  creation,  providence 
and  redemption."  And  on  the  next  page  they  say  that  "  he 
shall  subscribe  a  solemn  declaration  of  his  faith  in  divine 
revelation,  and  in  the  fundamental  and  distinguishing  doc- 
trines of  the  gospel  as  expressed  in  the  following  Creed, 
which  is  supported  by  the  infallible  revelation  which  God 
constantly  makes  of  Himself  in  His  works  of  creation,  provi- 
dence and  redemption." 

Why  emphasize,  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  why  em- 
phasize so  particularly  by  this  iteration  the  fact  that  God  is 
constantly  revealing  Himself  from  age  to  age  more  clearl^^, 
more  clearly  in  one  age  than  in  the  age  before,  b}^  His  works, 
and  by  His  works  of  creation,  providence  and  redemption? 
Is  it  not  for  one  thing  because  the  Westminster  Catechism 
says  that  He  is  nuide  known  by  His  works,  and  then  says 
these  works  are  the  woiks  of  creation  and  providence,  and 
stops  there  ?  This  Creed  says  God  shows  Himself  infallibly, 
and  more  and  more  clearly  as  time  goes  on,  by  His  works  of 
creation,  providence  and  redemption;  and  that  word  re- 
di'mption  stamps  its  character  deep  on  the  Creed  of  Andover 
Seminary,  in  its  widest  and  most  generous  sense.  The 
Bible,  no  doubt,  is  the  key  of  the  universe,  but  the  Bible  is 
not  the  universe.  It  tells  us  how  to  read  the  phenomena 
that  science  and  inquiry  bring  to  our  e^^es.  We  must  accept 
the  facts  that  astronomy  gives  us,  the  facts  that  geology 
gives  us,  the  facts  that  biology  gives  us,  the  facts  that  evo- 


197 

lution  gives  us,  and  apply  to  them  the  key  of  the  written 
revelation  of  the  Holy  Scriptures ;  and  that  is  the  solemn 
duty  that  this  creed  casts  upon  the  Brown  Professor  of 
Ecclesiastical  History. 

Let  me  read  to  the  Visitors  the  definition  of  Calvinism  'by 
Webster,  in  the  edition  of  his  dictionary  of  1828,  published 
shortl}^  after  these  documents  took  their  shape  :  "  Calvinism. 
The  distinguishing  doctrines  of  this  system  are,  original  sin, 
particular  election  and  reprobation,  particular  redemption, 
effectual  grace  in  regeneration  or  a  change  of  heart  by  the 
spirit  of  God,  justification  by  free  grace,  perseverance  of  the 
saints,  and  the  trinity."  That  is  a  list,  no  doubt  fairly  ex- 
pressive of  the  Calvinism  of  the  early  part  of  the  nineteenth 
century,  a  definition  which  excludes  from  its  distinguishing 
features,  most  of  those  doctrines  on  which  the  weight  of  the 
charges  of  the  prosecutors  rests.  We  find  nothing  here,  for 
instance,  as  to  eschatology.  We  do  find  that  particular 
election  and  particular  redemption  are  distinguishing  doc- 
trines of  Calvinism.  They  are  not,  thank  God,  distinguish- 
ing doctrines  of  the  Creed  and  Statutes  of  Andover  Seminary. 
The  Creed  of  Andover  Seminary,  as  the  Board  well  know, 
contains  different  statements  of  the  truth  of  redemption  and 
of  atonement.  It  tells  us  in  one  breath,  in  the  familiar 
phraseology  of  Calvinism,  that  redemption  is  for  the  few,  is 
for  the  elect  ;  and  then  it  follows  with  a  wider  message,  that 
redemption  and  that  the  atonement  are  for  all  men.  And  the 
Creed  of  Andover  Seminary  closes  with  what  is  almost  a 
doxology  of  praise  to  God  that  in  His  good  counsel  and  good 
pleasure  evil  will  finally  give  place  to  good.  This  declara- 
tion that  all  actions  and  events,  both  in  the  natural  and 
moral  world  are  under  His  providential  direction,  that  it  is 
the  prerogative  of  God  to  bring  good  out  of  evil,  and  that 
He  will  cause  the  wrath  and  rage  of  wicked  men  and  devils 
to  praise  Him,  and  that  all  the  evil  which  has  existed,  and 
will  forever  exist  in  the  moral  system,  will  eventually  be 
made  to  promote  a  most  important  purpose  under  the  wise 
and  perfect  administration  of  that  Almighty  Being,  who 
will    cause    all    things    to    work    for    His    own    glory,    this 


198 

ascription,  I  say,  of  homage  to  God,  gives  a  character  to  the 
Andover  Creed  which  is  foreign  to  the  old  spirit  of  old 
Calvinism. 

Take  those  two  professions  of  this  Creed,  universal  atone- 
ment and  the  universal  change  of  evil  to  good  in  the  far 
distant  future,  and  add  to  it  what  they  took  from  the  West- 
minster Catechism,  that  Christ  was  the  eternal  Son  of  God, 
and  you  have  three  principles  laid  down,  three  principles 
combined  for  the  first  time,  as  has  been  said  by  my  learned 
associate,  in  Christian  theologic  statement,  from  which  de- 
ductions can  be  drawn  and  must  be  drawn  of  the  most  far- 
reachincr  character.  It  has  been  the  business  of  the  Andover 
professors  to  draw  these  deductions  from  these  postulates 
for  three-quarters  of  a  century,  and  in  so  doing  they  have 
always  had  the  adherents  of  the  ancient  system  of  narrow 
redemption,  narrow  election,  and  narrow  atonement,  against 
them.  It  has  been  constantly  the  Andover  theology  against 
Princeton  theology,  Dr.  Miller  against  Dr.  Stuart,  the  old 
school  theology  in  Andover  itself  against  the  new  school 
theology  in  Andover  itself.  Dr.  Woods  against  his  associates 
in  the  faculty,  Dr.  Dana  against  his  associates  among  the 
Trustees.  The  Andover  Creed  is  a  nineteenth  century  Creed 
joined  to  a  seventeenth  century  Creed,  and  wdiere  it  differs 
from  it,  it  must  control  it,  as  this  Board  held,  your  prede- 
cessors, in  1844,  on  the  complaint  of  Prof.  Woods  and  Dr. 
Dana,  in  regard  to  the  non-subscription  of  the  associate  pro- 
fessors to  the  Westminster  Catechism.  I  quote  the  language 
of  the  Board  from  page  430  of  Woods'  History  of  Andover 
TheoTogical  Seminary. 

"XIV.  The  two  creeds  and  declarations"  (that  is  the 
declarations  of  the  original  Constitution  and  of  the  associate 
founders)  "  are  verbatim^  excepting  that  the  associate  decla- 
ration omits  what  is  said  of  the  catechism  ;  but  this  omission, 
the  original  founders  say,  is  supplied  in  the  creed  connected 
with  it,  and  more  than  supplied  because  the  Creed  is  the 
most  explicit.  We  cannot  tlierefore  discover  any  inconsht- 
ency  between  the  two  taken  as  a  whole." 

Mr.  Fkench.     What  do  you  understand  to  be  meant  by 


199 

that;  that  there   is  nothing  in  the  Creed  that  is  not  sub- 
stantial! v  in  the  Westminster  Catechism  ? 

Mr.  Baldwin.  Perhaps  it  would  be  better  for  me  to  con- 
clude my  argument,  and  then  you  close. 

Mr.  Feench.  Very  well,  I  will  not  interrupt  you  again, 
sir. 

Mr.  Baldwin.  I  have  no  hesitation,  however,  in  replying 
to  my  friend  Judge  French,  and  in  saying  that  if  the  West- 
minster Catechism  does  in  any  way  conflict  with  the  Associ- 
ate Creed,  and  it  is  impossible  to  reconcile  them,  then  the 
associate  Creed  must  control,  in  my  judgment.  That  they 
do  accord  in  substance,  which  is  all  we  have  to  inquire  about 
to-day,  has  been  decided  by  that  Court  which  is  superior  to 
this  Court,  under  the  laws  of  the  Commonwealth ;  and  the 
law  laid  down  by  that  Court  in  1815  is,  of  eourse,  the  law 
for  us  in  1886.  That  case,  the  case  of  the  Trustees  of  Phil- 
lips Academy  vs.  King,  in  the  12th  Volume  of  Mass.  Reports, 
it  will  be  recollected,  was  one  brought  by  the  Trustees  of 
Phillips  Academy  for  a  certain  large  legacy  from  the  estate 
of  Madam  Norris.  It  was  the  contention  of  the  Trustees 
that  the  legacy  was  good,  because  the  Theological  Seminary 
was  built  on  a  foundation  broad  enough  to  cover  both  Cal- 
vinism and  Hopkinsianism  ;  that  the  Associate  Creed  and 
the  Westminster  Catechism  harmonized  for  substance,  and 
that  that  was  sufficient  to  support  their  title  to  the  legac3^ 
The  Supreme  Court  took  that  view,  and  the  legacy  was  ob- 
tained, and  it  is  being  used  to-day  by  the  Seminary  for  the 
support  of  its  professors  and  its  establishment. 

Is  there  any  doubt,  j\Ir.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  that  the 
rule  of  law  which  gave  that  money  to  the  Seminary  dictates 
to  the  Seminary  how  that  money  is  to  be  applied  ?  If  they 
got  that  legacy  because  the  Westminster  Catechism  and  the 
Associate  Creed  were  in  substantial  harmon}^  must  they  not 
apply  those  funds,  may  they  not  apply  those  funds,  in  teach- 
ing on  a  platform  which  says  that  the  Westminster  Cate 
chism  and  the  Associate  Creed  are  in  substantial  harmony  ? 
Not  that  they  are  in  literal  harmony ;  not  that  in  non-essen- 
tials they  are  not  diametrically  opposed.     Take  the  letter  for 


200 

instance  that  I  read  from  Dr.  Spring,  in  putting  in  the  evi- 
dence in  this  case,  found  in  Woods'  History,  page  623.  Says 
Dr.  Spring,  the  author  of  the  Associate  Creed  more  than  any 
one  else,  and  a  Visitor  on  the  original  Board,  in  speaking  of 
the  attack  on  the  framers  of  the  creed  b}^  a  Unitarian  periodi- 
cal :  ''It  has  proved  that  we  all  have  the  Bible  on  our  side 
when  we  depart  from  several  answers  in  the  Catechism.  The 
transfer  of  sin,  the  sin  of  Adam,  and  the  transfer  of  Christ's 
righteousness  are  scholastic  nonsense  and  jargon."  That  was 
the  language  in  which,  in  the  form  of  an  unoificial  letter.  Dr. 
Spring  could  characterize  some  of  the  language  of  the  Cate- 
chism, which,  together  with  the  Creed  formed  the  platform 
on  which  he  stood  as  a  member  of  the  Board  of  Visitors. 

So  he  says  on  page  594,  in  another  letter  to  Dr.  Morse : 
"  We  need  not  feel  encumbered  with  the  doctrine  of  eternal 
generation,  because  God  is  styled  the  Father  and  Christ  the 
Son  of  God,  any  more  than  with  the  eternal  fellowship  of 
the  trinity.  The  endearing  words  Father  and  Son  are  used 
to  express  the  sublime  eternal  relation  between  the  first  two 
persons  of  the  Godhead,  because  as  I  conceive  no  better 
words  could  be  adopted.  The  relation  is  the  most  sublime 
and  endearing." 

We  all  know  the  poverty  of  human  language  to  express 
the  great  thoughts  of  theology.  Dr.  Spring  recognizes  it 
there,  and  yet  he  says  that  eternal  generation,  which  the 
term  used  seems  to  imply,  is  rejected.  The  term  Son  has  no 
reference  to  a  succession  of  age,  to  a  descent  from  father  to 
child.  It  refers,  in  the  best  word  that  human  language  can 
supply,  to  the  sublime,  endearing,  eternal  relation  of  the 
different  subsistences  of  the  Godhead. 

It  is  Orthodox,  then,  to  stand  upon  Andover  Hill  and 
teach  the  Westminster  Catechism,  and  teach  imputed  sin, 
imputed  righteousness.  It  is  lawful  also  to  stand  there  and 
teach  what  has  been  taught  for  generations,  the  wider  doc- 
trine of  the  Associate  Creed. 

The  Creed  of  Andover  Seminary  is  one,  to  understand 
which,  you  must  read  between  the  lines.  Dr.  Woods,  in  his 
History  of  the  Seminary,  has  given  us,  on  page  32,  the  ten- 


201 

ets  of  Hopkinsianisra,  and  they  assert:  "  First,  that  all  true 
virtue  or  real  holiness  consists  in  disinterested  benevolence  ; 
second,  that  all  sin  consists  in  selfishness."  Neither  of  these 
definitions  is  found  in  the  Creed,  and  yet  no  Hopkinsian, 
like  Dr.  Spring  or  Dr.  Woods,  could  have  assented  to  that 
Creed  without  reading  between  the  lines  that  sin  was  selfish- 
ness, and  that  disinterested  benevolence  was  happiness  and 
holiness.  The  omissions  of  the  Creed  mean  as  much  as  its 
propositions. 

In  the  history  of  Dr.  Woods,  the  Creed  is  frequently 
spoken  of  as  a  compromise  Creed.  It  is  better  spoken  of, 
I  think,  better  described,  in  the  language  of  Dr.  Smyth  as  a 
comprehensive  Creed.  It  is  a  Creed  meant  to  be  wide 
enousfh  to  brine:  within  it  all  shades  of  belief  comprised 
within  the  lines  of  evangelical  doctrine.  It  is  a  Creed  of 
the  times,  of  this  time,  of  this  century.  It  is  not  so  very 
far  back  to  1807  and  1808.  Those  were  not  times  of  dul- 
ness  and  inaction  in  the  world.  They  were  the  times  when 
the  French  Revolution  and  Napoleon  were  transforming 
Europe ;  when  the  whole  circle  of  society  was  broken  up 
with  new  movements  and  with  new  thoughts.  It  was  in 
those  times  that  this  Creed  arose  as  a  new  creation,  expres- 
sive of  the  best  thought  of  the  day.  And  no  higher  concep- 
tion has  yet  been  formed  of  sin  than  that  it  is  selfishness,  or 
of  holiness,  than  that  it  is  disinterested  benevolence. 

It  is  of  no  consequence  that  any  particular  theory  now 
held,  future  probation,  for  instance,  if  you  please,  was  not 
in  the  minds,  so  far  as  we  know,  of  the  framers  of  the  Creed. 
The  only  question  is  whether  the  language  of  the  Creed 
necessarily  excludes  it.  This  question  came  before  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  sixty  years  ago,  in  a 
case  of  great  magnitude,  commonly  known  as  the  Dartmouth 
College  case.  The  members  of  the  Board  will  recollect  that 
Dartmouth  College  exists  under  a  charter  from  the  British 
Crown.  After  the  Revolution  the  Legislature  of  New 
Hampshire  saw  fit  to  pass  an  Act  turning  the  college  into  a 
university  in  name,  calling  it  Dartmouth  University.  They 
changed  its  mode  of  government  by  virtually  deposing  the 


T-- 


202 

old  Trustees  named  by  the  founders,  or  who  had  succeeded 
to  those  thus  named,  and  by  adding  to  their  number  certain 
State  officers.  The  college  applied  to  one  of  its  great  alumni, 
Daniel  Webster,  to  see  if  its  franchise  could  not  be  pro- 
tected ;  and  after  study  and  reflection  Mr.  Webster  told  them 
it  could  be,  on  this  ground :  That  the  National  Constitution 
declared  that  no  State  could  pass  any  law  impairing  the 
obligation  of  a  contract.  And  what  was  a  contract?  Mr. 
Webster  argued  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States 
that  the  term  contract  included  any  gift  made  by  one  and 
accepted  by  another  ;  that  that  was  an  executed  contract.  A 
charter  was  a  tender  by  the  State  of  certain  franchises,  and 
its  acceptance  made  a  contract  between  the  State  and  the 
holder  of  the  charter.  And  that  contract,  Mr.  Webster  con- 
tended, the  State  could  not  impair.  The  case  was  argued 
with  great  ability  by  leading  counsel,  and  the  gentlemen  on 
the  other  side  insisted  that  the  framers  of  the  C(  nstitution 
never  could  have  had  the  thought  of  a  charter  in  their  minds, 
—  a  charter  from  the  British  King,  least  of  all.  They  were 
talking  of  contracts  such  as  notes  and  bonds,  and  not  of 
charters  and  grants  of  franchises.  But  when  the  great 
(^'hief  Justice  Marshall  came  to  dispose  of  the  case  in  favor 
of  Dartmouth  College,  as  he  did,  he  said  the  question  was 
not  whether, the  framers  of  the  Constitution  thought,  when 
they  used  the  word  coiitract^  of  charters,  but  whether  the 
word  they  used,  whatever  it  was,  was  such  that  it  might 
be  interpreted  to  cover  charters.  And  Dartmouth  College 
held  its  own  charter  on  the  novel  ground,  to  American 
jurisprudence,  that  a  charter  was  a  contract,  protected  by  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States. 

And  so,  in  construing  this  Creed,  the  question  is  not  what 
the  founders  meant  by  their  words,  when  they  put  universal 
atonement  alongside  of  Christ  as  the  eternal  Son  of  God, 
coupled  with  this  doxology  and  ascription  of  praise  to  God  as 
he  who  would  bring  good  out  of  all  evil,  but  wliat  may  be 
fairly  derived  from  them  by  Christian  teachers.  What  will  it 
allow  them  to  hold,  putting  together  these  great  principles  and 
drawing  therefrom  any  and  all  legitimate  deductions  ?     That 


203 

principle  governs  this  case,  as  it  governed  that  of  Dartmouth 
College. 

And  I  need  not  say,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  no  creed  can  mean 
the  same  thing  to  different  men.  We  all  look  at  truth,  as  the 
old  warriors  looked  upon  the  shield,  silver  on  one  side  and 
gold  on  the  other,  with  a  different  aspect  as  we  may  approach 
it  from  a  different  side.  I  do  not  see  you  at  this  moment  as 
my  friend  Judge  French  sees  you.  The  point  of  view  at 
which  we  stand  creates  the  image  which  is  presented  to  our 
minds.  To  a  man  of  narrow  range  of  scholarship  and 
thought,  a  Creed  means  one  thing ;  and  the  same  words,  to 
a  man  of  philosophic  insight,  of  deep  reflection  and  of  great 
scholarship,  means  something  else.  Which  is  right,  the  in- 
terpretation put  upon  it  by  the  bigot,  by  the  man  who  has 
not  spent  years  of  study  to  get  at  the  real  meaning  of  the 
words,  or  the  judgment  of  the  man  who  has  given  his  life  to 
unfolding  the  meaning  of  similar  doctrines  and  searching 
to  the  very  bottom  to  find  out  what  truth  is?  "  The  letter 
killeth  ;  the  spirit  giveth  life." 

And  so  this  Andover  Creed  has  been  interpreted,  as  these 
books  show,  as  our  testimony  has  shown  ;  and  it  is  not  denied. 
So  has  this  Creed  been  interpreted  for  eighty  years.  Has 
there  been  any  other  mode  of  interpretation?  Why  have 
not  my  friends  shown  it  ?  They  have  not  shown  it,  because 
they  could  not  show  it.  From  the  first  Board  of  Visitors  to 
the  last  there  has  been  the  same  spirit  of  tolerance  and  cath- 
olicity in  the  construction  of  the  Creed.  The  same  con- 
struction has  been  put  upon  it  that  the  Supreme  Judicial 
Court  of  Massachusetts  impressed  upon  it  early  in  its  history, 
in  laying  down  the  law  for  this  case,  and  for  every  case  that 
can  ever  arise,  under  the  terms  made  use  of  in  1808. 

I  do  not  mean  that  the  action  of  the  Board  of  Visitors,  of 
the  Board  of  Trustees  and  of  the  professors,  in  adopting,  in 
sanctioning,  and  in  enforcing  this  liberal  construction  has 
passed  luiquestioned  or  unchallenged.  If  it  had,  the  fact 
that  such  was  the  construction  would  not  have  half  the  force 
that  it  has  now.  No,  from  the  very  foundation  of  the  Semi- 
nary there  were  men  like  the  prosecutors  of  to-da}',  men  who 


204 

were  hanging  on  the  wheels  of  time  trying  to  hold  them  back, 
who  have  opposed  this  doctrine  on  the  part  of  the  governing 
Board,  and  on  the  part  of  the  teaching  force  of  the  Seminary. 
]^et  me  read  a  word  or  two  from  what  Dr.  Dana  wrote  of 
Dr.  Stuart  and  of  Dr.  Park.  1  read  now  from  the  24th  page  of 
Dana's  Letters  to  Stuart  in  opposition  to  articles  in  the  "  Bibli- 
cal Repository  "  on  the  nature  of  sin :  "  In  a  word,  my  dear 
sir,"  says  Dr.  Dana,  addressing  himself  to  Prof.  Stuart,  "  I 
cannot  but  apprehend  that  you  are  far  too  sanguine  in  antici- 
pating the  speedy  disappearance  of  the  doctrine  in  debate,  — 
the  doctrine  of  original  sin.  Unquestionably  it  is  one  of  the 
grand  pillars  on  which  the  Andover  Institution  rests.  Can 
that  which  was  true  in  1808  be  false  in  1839  ?  Rather  let 
me  ask,  can  a  doctrine  which  the  Church  of  Christ,  from  its 
first  existence,  has  defended  with  such  energy,  and  cherished 
with  such  ardor,  be  ever  blotted  out  and  lost  ?  I  have  confi- 
dence that  it  will  not." 

Dr.  Dana  regarded  the  cause  of  Andover  Seminary  as  lost 
when  Stuart  preached  those  doctrines,  and  Park  afterwards 
came  upon  the  stage  to  defend  them.  This  is  what  Dr.  Dana 
said  of  Prof.  Park  in  1853. 

"'  His  views  of  human  ability  are  extravagant  and  extreme. 
They  obviously  tend  to  foster  in  men  a  spirit  of  pride,  of  self- 
sufficienc}^  of  independence  of  God,  and,  emphatically,  of 
procrastination.  Is  there  no  reason  to  fear  that,  in  this  very 
way,  too  many  have  found  their  eternal  ruin  ?  Is  there  no 
reason  to  fear  that  the  unconcerned,  the  irreligion,  and  the 
false  religion,  which  so  sadly  prevail  at  the  present  day,  may 
be  traced  to  the  same  source?" 

And  in  another  place  he  says : 

"  It  is  with  real  pain  and  grief  that  I  make  these  state- 
ments. I  have  not  a  particle  of  enmity  against  the  Professor. 
Far,  far,  rather,  would  I  employ  my  pen  in  commending  his 
fine  talents.  But  if  these  talents  are  employed  in  opposition 
to  fundamental  truth,  and  in  defence  of  dangerous  error,  their 
intluence  is  only  to  be  dreaded  and  discountenanced." 

Like  expressions  might  be  found  in  the  writings  of  Prof. 
Woods  ;   and  Dr.  Miller's  letters  to  Prof.  Stuart  contain  a 


205 

similar  criticism  from  a  sister  seminary.     In  the  semi-centen- 
nial Plistory  of   Andover  there  is  quoted  a  remark  by  Dr. 
Spring   on  Dwight's  Theology.     The    first  volume    of   that 
work  was  published    shortly  before    the  foundation    of  the 
seminary,  and  Dr.  Spring  wrote  of  it  thus  :  "  Certainly  the 
L'ord  must  reign,  or  he  would  never  have    suffered  such  a 
book  to  be  published."     A  year  from  that  time  Dr.  Spring 
and   Dr.  Dwight  were  sitting  together  as  members,  of  tlds 
Board ;  and  that  is  a  fair  instance  of  the  tolerance  of  differ- 
ence of  opinion  on  unessentials  which  has  ever  characterized 
the  management  of  this  institution.     I  read  one  other  quota- 
tion from  Dr.  Dana's  letters  to  Dr.  Stuart,  written  in  1839, 
in  reference  to  this  same  doctrine  of  Dr.  Stuart  on  the  nature 
of  sin.     Says  Dr.  Dana :  "  In  view  of  the  existing  state  of 
things,  it  is  impossible  adequately  to  describe  the  importance 
of  our  theological  seminaries.     From  the  very  nature  of  the 
case,  they  must  possess  and  wield  an  immense  power  either 
for  good  or  for  evil.     While  they  are  faithful  to  God  and  to 
His  truth,  the  church  will  not  fail  to  cherish  them   as  her 
choicest  hope,  her  richest,  dearest  treasure.    But  what  if  they 
should  prove  recreant  to  their  high  destiny?     What  if  the 
streams  which  issue  periodically  from  these  fountains  should 
become  impure  and  polluted  ?     Alas,  words  cannot  paint  the 
bitter  disappointment,  the  deep-felt  grief,  the  disastrous,  wide- 
spread and  almost  interminable  evils  which  must  ensue." 

He  therefore  wanted  Stuart  to  retract  his  views  on    the 
nature  of  sin  ;  but  I  need  not  say  he  did  not. 

Now,  let  me  suggest  this  :  That  this  doctrine  of  a  possible 
future  probation,  which  is  attacked  by  the  libel  of  the  prose- 
cutors, is  one  that  has  been  found  helpful  to  very  many 
minds  in  grappling  with  the  problems  of  evil  and  sin  and 
human  destiny.  It  has  been  found  to  be  a  powerful  answer 
to  agnosticism.  Of  all  the  forms  of  error  that  exist  to-day 
among  educated  men,  I  think  I  am  safe  in  saying  that  agnos- 
ticism is  the  most  deadly,  —  the  thought  that  there  may  be 
nothing  above  this  Avorld,  Jhat  it  is  not  worth  while  to  in- 
quire whether  there  is  or  is  not,  that  we  have  not  time  for  it, 
that  we  have. not  the  ability  for  it,  that  we  have  not  the 


206 

power  to  ascertain,  and  therefore  that  we  have  no  incentive 
to  try.  Agnosticism  has  sometimes  taken  the  shape  of  theo- 
logical treatises  by  eminent  theologians,  eminent  in  their 
way,  like  Mansel.  God  is  unknowable,  they  tell  us,  except 
as  he  is  explicitly  revealed  in  his  written  word.  No,  says 
the  Andover  Creed,  the  Andover  Professors :  He  is  also  con- 
stantly revealing  Himself  in  His  works  of  creation,  provi- 
dence, and  redemption.  I  think  the  doctrine  of  agnosticism 
is  met  arid  silenced  by  this  thought  of  a  possible  future  pro- 
bation, as  it  can  be  in  no  other  way.  Old  Calvinism  said 
that  God  worked  in  His  good  pleasure  when  and  how  He 
might  for  the  salvation  of  the  elect  who  were  not  outwardly 
called  in  this  life,  who  never  heard  the  ministry  of  the  Word, 
and  of  the  elect' infants.  But  how?  Calvinism  had  no 
answer,  and  therefore  men,  when  they  were  led  up  to  that 
door  and  told  they  could  go  no  further,  became  agnostics  or 
infidels.  Here  is  a  theory  of  thought  and  hope  which  shows 
how  God's  ways  in  His  dealings  with  man  can  be  reconciled 
with  man's  views  of  justice  and  what  is  due  to  himself.  And 
are  these  gentlemen  to  be  blamed  for  putting  before  the 
American  public  a  view  of  that  sort  which  has  carried  heal- 
ing with  it  to  many  a  wounded  soul?  As  I  compare  a  book 
like  Progressive  Orthodoxy  with  the  ancient  and  rigid  state- 
ments of  a  former  age,  of  the  last  century  and  of  the  century 
before,  it  is  almost  like  hearing  St.  Paul  preach  at  Athens 
about  their  worshipping  the  unknown  God,  when  he  luid  a 
God  openly  to  declare  unto  them.  Here  is  a  suggestion  made 
towards  a  better  knowledge  of  God,  a  hope  spoken  of,  not  made 
essential  in  Christian  theology,  but  thrown  out  as  a  sujDport  to 
those  who  need  it,  and  seized  with  welcome  by  many  hearts. 
Unless,  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  the  Andover  Creed 
can  be  accepted  and  interpreted  hereafter  as  it  has  been  in 
the  past,  the  hopes  of  the  founders  that  that  Creed  would  be 
perpetually  expounded  by  able  and  learned  men  will  certainly 
be  frustrated.  No  learned  and  able  man,  in  the  true  sense 
of  that  word,  will  be  found  to  come  before  you,  as  years  go 
on,  and  take  that  Creed  in  any  other  way  than  as  you,  gentle- 
men, have  taken  it,  or  these  professors,  who  are  on  trial  to-day, 


207 

have  taken  it.  And  suppose  the  day  comes  (as  it  may)  when 
you  cannot  find  anybody  to  accept  each  decLiration  of  the 
Creed  in  a  literal  sense,  and  yet  the  Boaid  of  Visitors  insists 
on  a  literal  meaning  of  every  word  independent  of  every 
other,  not  looking  at  the  whole,  but  taking  it  in  its  details, 
and  calling  for  a  subscription  to  every  point  without  refer- 
ence to  it  in  its  entirety.  If  that  time  ever  comes,  the  time 
will  have  come  too,  when  Congregationalists  may  well  fear 
that  the  Supreme  Judicial  Court  of  Massachusetts,  in  the 
exercise  of  its  high  Cy  Pres  powers,  will  step  down  and  order 
this  institution  to  be  closed,  or  changed  into  a  foundation  for 
some  other  mode  of  preaching  the  truth.  This  is  the  doc- 
trine of  administering  trusts  as  near  as  may  be  to  the  will  of 
the  dead,  when  circumstances  have  so  far  changed  that  they 
cannot  be  exactly  administered  in  accordance  with  the  origi- 
nal intention,  which  has  come  here  from  the  Courts  of  Great 
Britain.  What  have  they  done  there  ?  Formerly  it  was  the 
law  of  Great  Britain,  as  you  know,  that  the  Roman  Catholic 
religion  could  not  be  publicly  taught,  could  not  be  privately 
taught.  Suppose  in  those  days  a  good  Catholic  died  leaving 
property  for  the  benefit  of  his  church.  The  Court  of  Clian- 
cery  of  Great  Britain  seized  upon  that  fund.  They  said, 
true,  the  dead  left  it  for  a  public  and  charitable  purpose,  and 
it  shall  be  applied  to  a  public  and  charitable  purpose,  but  not 
to  his.  He  wanted  it  to  go  to  an  illegal  purpose ;  we  will 
take  it  and  apply  it  to  the  Church  of  England,  the  established 
church.  Over  and  over  again  was  that  done  under  the  Cy 
Pres  doctrine  in  Great  Britain.  Is  this  Board  willing  to  take 
one  step  which  might  tend  to  put  Andover  Seminary  at  the 
disposition  of  the  Chancery  Courts  of  this  Commonwealth 
under  that  same  doctrine  ?  I  trust  not.  I  trust  not  as  a 
Congregationalist  who  hopes  that  this  Seminary  will  go  on 
for  centuries  and  be  administered  in  tlie  same  way  in  which 
it  has  been  administered  from  the  very  beginning  of  its  his- 
tory. Here  is  prosecuted  the  son-in-law  of  a  former  member 
of  this  Board,  and  I  am  glad  that  he  is  defended  by  the  grand- 
son of  another  Visitor  who  once  held  a  seat,  and  the  first  seat, 
upon  this  Board,  and  by  the  grandnephew  of  another. 


208 

How  easy  it  would  be,  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  for 
these  professors  to  draw  their  salaries  and  spend  their  lives  in 
the  pastoral  quiet  of  Andover,  without  ever  venturing  into 
print  and  giving  the  world  the  benefit  of  their  researches. 
They  have  been  willing  to  spend  their  time  and  strength  and 
thought  in  giving  Andover  a  name  in  the  theological  world, 
ift  giving  their  best  thoughts,  their  best  hours,  their  best 
work,  not  simply  to  teaching,  but  to  publishing  their  views. 
Are  they  to  be  censured  for  it  ?  Certainly  not,  unless  they 
have  published  something  which  is  contrary  to  the  true  spirit 
and  intent  of  the  Statutes  they  have  subscribed.  If  this  pros- 
ecution rests  on  any  thing,  it  is  a  breach  of  contract  between 
them  and  the  Trustees  of  Philli})s  Academy  ;  and  I  need  not 
say  that  to  prove  a  breach  of  contract  the  plaintiff  has  the 
burden  of  the  case,  and  must  make  it  out  by  clear  evidence. 
Tliis  idea  of  my  friends  on  the  other  side,  or  their  suggestion, 
that  a  theory  thrown  out  tentatively  in  Progressive  Ortliodoxy 
is  the  assertion  and  teaching  of  a  dogma,  I  repudiate.  Let 
me  read  what  Professor  Park  said  once  of  a  similar  claim  in 
regard  to  an  expression  of  Tholuck  as  to  a  final  restoration. 
"An  opinion,  when  entertained  in  the  shape  of  a  subordinate 
and  incidental  theory,  is  as  different  in  its  influence  from  that 
same  opinion  when  entertained  in  the  shape  of  an  essential 
and  conspicuous  doctrine,  as  the  alcohol  in  bread  is  different 
in  its  effect  from  the  alcohol  in  brandy."  When  we  teach 
future  probation  as  a  dogma  in  Andover  Seminary,  and  charge 
it  upon  our  young  men  as  a  thing  for  them  to  teach  and  preach 
as  a  vital  and  fundamental  and  essential  doctrine  of  religion, 
then  it  will  be  time  for  my  friends  to  say  that  we  are  teach- 
ing doubts  instead  of  truths. 

The  question  as  it  seems  to  me  is  this  :  Ts  Andover  Semi- 
nary to  go  on  hereafter  as  it  has  gone  on  for  eighty  3"ears  ?  Is 
it  to  live  forever  and  ever  ?  It  may,  Mr.  President  and  gentle- 
men, if  you  this  day  determine  that  the  Creed  and  Statutes 
of  the  Seminary  are  to  be  read  in  the  same  spirit  of  union 
and  harmony  in  which  they  were  formed  ;  in  the  way  in  which 
every  creed  must  be  read  which  has  in  it  the  first  elements  of 
perpetuity. 


HON.  CHARLES  THEODORE  RUSSELL'S  ARGUMENT. 


Gentlemem,  of  the  Board  of  Visitors  : 

If  I  know  my  purpose  I  am  not  here  in  the  spirit  of  an 
advocate  :  much  less  of  a  partisan  of  any  particular  "phase  of 
orthodoxy  in  the  past "  or  in  the  present.  I  have  heretofore 
subscribed  the  statutes  nnder  consideration,  and  for  many 
years,  in  my  humble  way,  I  participated  in  their  adminis- 
tration. For  several  of  these  years  I  had  the  pleasure  to  be 
associated  with  the  two  senior  members  of  the  present  Board 
in  such  administration,  —  during  all  which  I  think  we  differed 
but  upon  a  single  occasion. 

I  am  here  to  give  you  such  aid  as  I  may  in  meeting  a  duty 
in  character  most  important  and  responsible ;  in  result 
reaching  far  beyond  present  persons  and  present  times.  In 
a  "judicial  ca[)acity  "  you  are  "  to  determine,  interpret  and 
explain  the  Statutes."  And  you  come  to  this  duty  under  a 
solemn  pledge  "  to  exert  your  abilities,  to  carry  into  execu- 
tion the  Statutes  of  the  said  Founders,  and  to  promote  the 
great  object  of  the  Institution." 

It  becomes  then  of  primal  importance  to  ascertain  what 
principles  of  interpretation  and  construction  are  to  be  applied 
to  these  Statutes ;  and  especially  what  principles  these 
Founders  themselves  applied  or  intended  should  be  applied. 
It  is  to  this  point  that  my  argument  will  be  addressed. 

It  is  not  necessary,  after  the  elaborate,  eloquent,  and 
exhaustive  exposition  of  Professor  Smyth,  yesterday  and  to- 
day, that  I  should,  if  I  were  able,  deal  with  the  theologi- 
cal questions  in  controversy.  I  am  quite  content  to  leave 
this  part  of  the  case  where  he  has  left  it.  I  need  hardly 
add  that  while  I  address  you  in  behalf  of  the  only  respondent 


210 

Professor  Smyth,  now  on  trial,  I  intend  m}'^  argument  to  apply 
without  repetition  to  his  associate  Professors. 

All  courts  of  justice,  before  hearing  a  cause,  require  the 
parties  to  come,  by  their  pleadings,  or  statements,  to  an  issue 
in  law  or  fact,  single,  certain  and  material  ;  which  tendered 
by  one  party  and  accepted  by  the  other,  when  decided  by 
the  Court,  shall  determine  the  controversy.  Eminently  ne- 
cessary as  such  rule  is  to  the  rights  of  parties,  it  is  equally  so 
for  any  intelligible  determination,  from  the  record,  of  pre- 
cisely what  the  tribunal  did,  and  what  it  did  not,  decide.  Still 
more  essential,  is  such  precision  of  statement,  where  the  de- 
cision becomes  a  precedent,  and  an  authoritative,  perhaps 
conclusive,  construction  of  such  credal  statutes  as  those  now 
under  discussion. 

This  rule,  old  as  the  common  law,  and  in  proceedings  like 
these,  everywhere,  with  us,  guarded  by  Constitutional  pro- 
vision, is  just  as  necessary  to  theological  as  legal  contro- 
versies, especially  where  such  controversies  assume  the  now 
somewhat  antiquated  and  repellent  form  of  public  complaint 
and  prosecution  for  heresy. 

That  eminent  theologian  and  scholar.  Cardinal  Newman, 
says,  in  one  of  his  University  Sermons,  "  Half  the  controver- 
sies in  the  world,  could  they  be  brought  to  a  plain  issue, 
would  be  brought  to  a  prompt  termination."  "  When  men 
understand  what  each  other  means,  they  see,  for  the  most 
part,  that  controversy  is  either  superfluous  or  hopeless." 

Recognizing  this  truth,  and  in  no  spirit  of  captious  legal 
obstruction,  this  respondent  asked  for  a  clear  and  definite 
statement  of  the  charges  intended  to  be  made.  This  would 
naturally  and  necessarily  involve  a  statement  of  the  particular 
parts  of  the  creed,  be  it  Calviuistic,  Westminster  Shorter 
Catechism,  or  associate,  upon  which  the  complainants  relied, 
and  the  particular  acts  the  respondent  had  done,  or  the  par- 
ticular opinions  and  doctrines  he  held,  which  violated  such 
parts.  Such  specification  the  respondent  has  never  obtained. 
We  do  not  comphiin  of  dislocated  and  dismembered  citations 
from  the  respondent's  book,  in  allegation  or  evidence,  so  much 
as   we    do,    that    the    complainants   give    us   nowhere    their 


211 

hypothesis  or  construction  of  any  parts  of  the  creed,  or  even 
tell  us  the  parts,  which  they  say  we  violate.  Till  this  is  done 
we  do  not  know  whether  our  controversy  is  one  of  interpre- 
tation and  construction,  or  of  fact. 

I  began  these  preliminary  suggestions  with  a  citation  from 
an  eminent  theologian  of  another  country.  May  I  close 
them  with  one  from  an  equally  eminent  theologian  of  our 
countr}^  —  I  mean  Prof.  Park?  In  the  opening  chapter  of 
his  pamphlet  on  "  The  Associate  Creed  of  Andover  Theologi- 
cal Seminary,"  published  in  1883,  he  says :  "  There  are  sev- 
eral doctrines  for  the  maintenance  of  which,  in  a  special  de- 
gree, the  Andover  Seminary  was  founded.  In  this  chapter 
four  of  these  doctrines  are  specified,  because  their  practical 
importance  is  easily  seen,  and  because  their  truth  has  been 
recently  denied.  Appended  to  the  statement  of  each  doc- 
trine is  a  statement  of  the  contrasted  error"  (p.  3). 

"The  first  of  these  four  doctrines  is:  The  Bible,  in  all  its 
religious  and  moral  teachings,  is  entirely  trustworthy.  The 
contrasted  error  is :  We  are  not  authorized  to  confide  in 
all  the  biblical  teachings,  even  in  all  which  relate  to  re- 
ligion and  morality.  Some  of  them  are  false  and  hurtful ; 
or  some  may  be  false  and  hurtful  ;  or  so  far  as  any  of  them 
are  in  our  view  opposed  to  the  Christian  consciousness,  we  can- 
not positively  believe  them,  even  if  we  do  not  positively  dis- 
believe them  "  (p.  3). 

The  citation  of  one  of  these  specifications  is  sufficient  to 
show  the  character  of  all.  They  at  once  reveal  to  us  their 
author's  conception  of  the  creed  and  the  alleged  or  contrasted 
error,  and  eliminate  at  once  and  clearly,  either  an  issue  of  con- 
struction, or  of  fact. 

Such  specification  is  all  the  respondent  has  ever  asked;  and 
such  the  ablest  of  theologians,  concurring  with  us,  deems  es- 
sential, at  the  very  entrance,  upon  the  same  substantial  dis- 
cussion, which  the  complainants  have  forced  upon  us,  without 
such  specification. 

We  are  told  this  is  no  trial  for  heresy :  —  but  a  friendly  suit, 
to  repress  the  greatest  breach  of  trust  of  the  century.  It  is 
said,  the  question  is,  not  whether  the  respondent  is  right  or 


212 

wrong  in  his  views  ;  whether  progressive  orthodoxy  is  truer 
or  better  than  Calvinistic  orthodoxy ;  but  simply,  whether 
the  views  of  these  professors  are  inconsistent  with  any  part 
of  an  ironclad  creed,  by  which  certain  most  eminent  and 
progressive  gentlemen,  nearly  a  century  ago,  attempted  by 
"  a  complicated  and  iron-bound  endeavor  to  anchor  the  or- 
thodoxy of  the  future,  as  by  a  chain  cable,  to  one  of  its  partic- 
ular phases  in  the  past."  How  far  this  is  true,  I  will  consider 
when  I  state  the  issue.  I  only  say  now,  whether  it  be  true 
or  not,  this  is  no  such  cold,  comparative,  impassive,  imper- 
sonal question  to  you.  Reverend  and  Honored  Sirs. 

Before  you  can  take  the  seats,  you  so  well  fill,  you  have  a 
solemn  duty.  Let  me  state  it  in  the  words  of  the  Statutes  : 
"  He  shall,  moreover,  in  like  manner,  subscribe  the  same 
Theological  Creed,  which  every  Professor  elect  is  required  to 
subscribe,  and  a  Declaration  of  his  faith  in  the  same  Creed  shall 
be  repeated  by  him  at  every  successive  period  of  five  years." 
Art.  19,  Statutes. 

Whatsoever  it  may  be  to  others,  this  creed,  ironclad  or 
elastic,  complicated  or  simple,  with  whatsoever  construction 
or  interpretation  you  put  upon  it,  is  to  you,  and  each  of  you, 
to-day,  a  living,  personal,  present  faith. 

What  then  is  the  issue  before  3'ou? 

In  April,  1863,  the  respondent,  Egbert  C.  Smyth,  was  ap- 
pointed Brown  Professor  of  Ecclesiastical  History  and  Pas- 
toral Theology  in  the  Theological  Institution  in  Phillips 
Academy,  Andover,  as  the  successor  of  Dr.  Shedd,  upon  the 
foundation  established  by  Moses  Brown  under  dates  of  Feby 
8,  1819,  Nov.  4,  1820,  and  June  11,  1824. 

Deeds  and  Donations,  146-151. 

The  date  of  this  Foundation,  Feb'y  8, 1819,  is  important,  as 
bearing  materially  upon  a  subsequent  part  of  this  argument. 

By  the  terms  of  this  Foundation  "  all  the  Articles  of  the 
Associate  Statutes,  which  apply  to  Professors  on  that  Foun- 
dation, viz.  :  the  second,  third,  fourth,  fifth,  and  sixth  articles, 
shall  apply  equally  and  with  the  same  force  to  the  Professor 


213 

on  this  mj  Foundation,  and  the  said  second,  third,  fourth, 
fifth,  and  sixth  articles  of  the  said  Associate  Statutes  shall 
be  for  the  regulation  of  this  my  said  Professor  forever,  in 
the  same  manner  as  for  the  other  Professors  on  the  said 
Foundation." 

The  Foundation  is  then  made  "  subject  to  visitation  in  the 
same  manner  as  the  said  Associate  Foundation  is  now  subject 
to  visitation." 

Deeds  and  Donations,  pp.  147-8. 

Art.  2  of  the  Associate  Statutes  provides :  — 

Article  If.  Every  Professor  on  the  Associate  Foundation 
shall  be  a  Master  of  Arts,  of  the  Protestant  Reformed  Religion, 
an  ordained  Minister  of  the  Congregational  or  Presbyterian 
denomination,  and  shall  sustain  the  character  of  a  discreet, 
honest,  learned  and  devout  Christian ;  an  orthodox  and  con- 
sistent Calvinist ;  and  after  a  careful  examination  by  the 
Visitors  with  reference  to  his  religious  principles,  he  shall,  on 
the  day  of  his  inauguration,  publicly  make  and  subscribe  a 
solemn  declaration  of  his  faith  in  Divine  Revelation,  and  in 
the  fundamental  and  distinguishing  doctrines  of  the  Gospel,  as 
expressed  in  the  following  Creed,  which  is  supported  by  the  in- 
fallible Revelation  which  God  constantly  makes  of  Himself  in 
his  works  of  creation,  providence  and  redemption,  namely :  — 

Then  follows  the  Associate  Creed  and  Declaration. 

Art.  3  provides  for  the  repetition  of  the  Creed  and  Decla- 
ration every  five  years  by  the  Professors. 

Art.  4  provides  for  the  honorable  maintenance  of  the  Pro- 
fessors. 

Art.  5  is  wholly  devoted  to  regulations  of  their  duties  and 
services. 

Art.  6  provides  for  filling  vacancies. 

Professor  Smyth  was  appointed,  subject  to  these  Statutes, 
and  these  alone,  by  the  Trustees. 

I  shall  not  stop  to  discuss  at  length,  this  proposition,  be 
cause  it  is  now  so  well  settled  by  the  established  construc- 
tion of  this  Board,  as  to  be  no  longer  open  to  question. 

For  nineteen  years   after  the  establishment  of  the  semi- 


214 

nary,  no  professor  was  required  to,  or  did,  sign  any  thing  but 
the  Associate  Creed  and  Declaration.  For.  a  few  years 
subsequent,  from  1826  to  1842,  under  the  action  of  the 
Trustees,  all  the  professors  were  required  to  subscribe  the 
declaration  of  the  original  Founders.  But  attention  of 
the  Visitors  and  Trustees  was  called  to  the  matter,  by  the 
refusal  of  Dr.  Emerson  and  Dr.  Stuart  to  make  such  sub- 
scription, upon  the  ground  it  was  not  required.  The  ques- 
tion then  passed  under  the  careful  adjudication  of  the 
Trustees,  and  subsequently  of  this  Board,  to  which  Dr. 
Woods  made  his  elaborate  and  able  plea,  and  Dr.  Dana  his 
earnest  and  solemn  protest.  The  Board,  then  composed  of 
Dr.  Heman  Humphrey,  Dr.  Codman  and  Judge  Terry,  ren- 
dered judgment  upon  it,  in  a  very  carefully  drawn,  exhaus- 
tive opinion  in  1844.     (Wood's  Hist.,  pp.  424-482.) 

Since  then  for  forty-two  years,  under  this  judicial  decision, 
no  professor,  upon  the  Associate  Foundation,  has  subscribed, 
or  been  required  to  subscribe,  any  thing  but  the  Associate 
Creed. 

When  the   Brown   professorship  was  established  in  1819, 
the  Professors  were  subscribing  only  the   Associate   Creed, 
and  this  under  the  inspection  of  the  Board  of  Visitors,  of 
whom  Mr.  Brown  was  one. 

See  Wood's  Hist.,  pp.  368,  424. 

Professor  Smyth  was,  upon  his  appointment,  carefully  ex- 
amined by  the  then  Board  of  Visitors  "  with  reference  to  his 
religious  principles."  Being  found  by  them  to  be  "  a  Master 
of  Arts,  of  the  Protestant  Reformed  Religion,  an  ordained 
Minister  of  the  Congregational  Denomination,"  and  sustain- 
ing "  the  character  of  a  discreet,  honest  and  devout  Christian  ; 
an  orthodox  and  consistent  Calvinist,"  he  was  confirmed  by 
them. 

On  the  day  of  his  inauguration,  he  publicly  mads  and 
subscribed  "a  solemn  declaration  of  hisfa^th  in  Divine  Rev- 
elation, and  in  the  fundamental  and  distinguishing  doctrines 
of  the  Gospel  as  expressed  in  the  following  creed,  which  is 


215 

supported  by  the  infallible  Revelation  which  God  constantly 
makes  of  Himself  in  his  works  of  creation,  providence,  and 
redemption,  namely  :  "  and  he  then  repeated  and  subscribed 
the  Associate  Creed. 

This  Creed  and  Declaration  he  has  repeated  every  succes- 
sive five  years  for  thirteen  years  up  to  this  time,  and  to-day 
he  repeats  and  subscribes  it. 

In  doing  this,  his  entire  sincerity  and  good  faith  are  as- 
serted, and  would  be  presumed  bylaw,  without  assertion,  and 
are  put  beyond  all  question,  by  the  eminent  Christian  char- 
acter and  intelligence  of  the  respondent. 

I  repeat,  what  then  is  the  issue  ? 

Simply  this, 

(1)  Whether  Professor  Smyth  has  done  any  act,  or  holds, 
maintains  and  inculcates  any  opinions,  or  theological  doc- 
trines, which  are  so  inconsistent  with  any  portion  of  this 
creed,  fairly,  reasonably,  rightly  interpreted  and  construed, 
as  clearly  to  show  that  his  subscription  to,  and  adoption  of, 
it  must  be  either  dishonest,  unintelligent,  or  evasive  and 
criminal. 

(2)  Whether  he  has  done  any  acts,  or  holds,  maintains,  and 
inculcates  any  opinion  or  theological  doctrine,  which  take 
from  him  "  the  character  of  a  discreet,  honest,  learned  and 
devout  Christian  ;  an  orthodox  and  consistent  Calvinist." 

I  do  not  understand  that  the  complainants  charge  the 
Respondent  with  "  misbehavior,  incapacity  or  neglect  of  the 
duties  of  his  office."  But  they  do  charge,  with  more  or  less 
indefiniteuess,  that  he  has  done  acts,  or  holds,  maintains 
and  inculcates  opinions  or  doctrines,  such  as  I  have  stated, 
and  that  therefore  Professor  Smyth  is  guilty  of  ''hetero- 
doxy," under  the  20th  article  of  the  Associate  Statutes,  and 
ought  to  be  removed  or  admonished  by  you  according  as 
you  shall  find  the  "  heterodoxy  "  to  be  of  the  first  or  second 
degree. 

This  is  the  issue.     They  charge  —  we  deny. 

To  determine  this  issue  we  must  find  what  is  the  law, 
under  which  it  arises.  In  other  words,  what  do  the  con- 
trolling Statutes  and  Creed  mean  and  require?     To  settle 


216 

this  it  is  of  primal  and  transcendent  importance  to  ascertain, 
by  what  principles  and  rules,  these  Statutes,  and  this  Creed 
are  to  be  construed  and  interpreted.  I  apprehend  the  whole 
controversy  may  turn  upon  this. 

Before  enteiing  upon  the  discussion  of  these  principles 
and  rules,  let  me  submit,  that  sincere  and  honest  differences 
in  the  interpretation,  construction  or  acceptance  of  these 
Statutes  and  this  Creed,  within  just,  intelligent,  reasonable 
limits,  do  not  constitute  "heterodoxy."  If  they  do,  then, 
the  compromising  framers  of  the  Creed,  in  its  very  origin, 
were  heterodox  and  not  orthodox  one  to  the  other.  Eight 
distinguished,  and  all  but  one,  reverend  gentlemen,  peers 
each  of  the  other  in  character,  intelligence,  honesty,  learning, 
Christian  sincerity,  and  conscientiousness,  have  subscribed 
this  creed  and  made  it  a  personal  faith.  Three  sit  in  your 
seats,  and  five  in  those  of  the  Professors.  The  five  are  on 
trial  before  the  three,  for  "  heterodoxy  "  in  a  matter  purely 
of  interpretation,  and  construction.  Your  Statutes  provide 
that  a  majority  of  your  Board  may  decide  all  questions ;  and 
if  only  two  are  present,  and  divided  in  opinion,  the  vote  of 
the  President  shall  decide  the  question.  Suppose  two  only 
present,  and  that  they  differ  widely  but  honestly  on  the 
construction  and  interpretation  of  this  creed,  as  Trustees,  in 
days  gone  hj,  have,  and  perhaps,  in  the  present  day  do,  may 
your  President  not  only  decide,  but  impeach  his  associate  of 
"heterodoxy"  and  admonish  or  remove  him? 

Before  a  Judge  can  take  his  seat' upon  the  bench  of  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  he  must  make,  not  a 
declaration,  but  oath,  that  he  will  support  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States.  Yet  seven  of  these  judges  decide  that 
the  colored  man  is  not  a  citizen,  and  two  hold  the  opposite 
opinion.  Five  declare  that  Congress  has  no  power  to  issue 
legal  tender  notes,  and  four  again  hold  the  opposite.  And 
yet  did  anybody  ever  charge  the  minority  with  violation 
of  their  oath,  or  of  the  Constitution,  or  impeach  them  of 
"  heterodoxy  "  to  any  of  its  provisions  ? 

No.  Honest  and  fair  construction  and  interpretation, 
within  just  and  reasonable  limits  of  comprehension,  are  not 


217 

"heterodoxy,"  nor  culpable,  though  to  others  they  may  seem 
misconstructions  and  misinterpretations.  And  especially  is 
this  true,  in  matters  of  religious  opinion  and  dogma.  It  is 
here  little  more  than  the  assertion  of  the  right  of  private 
judgment,  the  grand  characteristic  of  the  protestant  church 
from  the  beginning.  The  light  of  fair,  reasonable,  honest, 
individual  construction  and  interpretation  of  that  he  sub- 
scribes, is  in  every  man,  be  his  subscription  to  the  Andover, 
or  the  Apostles'  Creed,  the  great  historic  creeds,  protestant 
or  catholic,  or  that  of  the  village  churches  of  New  England. 

If  there  is  any  thing  peculiar  in  this  creed  it  is  the  manifest 
intention  to  make  it,  by  adoption  and  repetition,  an  ever-liv- 
ing, personal,  perpetual  faith,  to  those  who  come  under  it.  I 
do  not  contend  that  you  can  add  to,  or  take  from,  it  a  word. 
Much  less  that  you  can  pervert  or  evade  it.  Like  some  pic- 
ture of  the  old  masters,  you  may  not  put  to  it  one  touch  of 
the  pencil,  but  you  may  brush  away  its  dust,  set  it  in  a  new 
frame,  and  hang  it  in  any  brighter  sunlight  of  heaven,  and 
thereby  bring  out  of  it  new  and  latent  force,  expression  and 
beauty. 

What  this  Creed  is  to  you,  it  is,  and  was  intended  to  be, 
to  every  soul  who  subscribes  it;  never  a  monumental  relic 
of  the  past,  but  "as  the  sun  and  moon  forever"  a  living 
faith,  holding  its  protective  power  over  the  Institution,  of 
which  it  was  an  incident,  for  "  the  defence  and  promotion 
of  the  Christian  Relifrion "  bv  increasino-  the  number  of 
learned  and  able  Defenders,  not  of  Calvin,  nor  of  Hopkins, 
nor  Emmons  but  "of  the  Gospel  of  Christ,  as  wed  as  of 
orthodox,  pious  and  zealous  Ministers  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment." 

The  Creed  was  made  for  the  Seminary,  not  the  Seminary 
for  the  Creed.  The  Seminary  was  founded,  not  for  the  times 
alone  of  its  founders,  but  "  as  the  sun  and  moon  "  for  all  time. 
Hence  the  long  study,  the  careful  preparation,  the  nice  ad- 
justment, the  comprehensive  and  tolerant  spirit  of  the  Creed. 
Its  framers,  never,  in  a  spirit  of  mutual  jealousy  and  distrust 
framed  their  Creed  to  put  one  another,  or  you,  or  your  pro 
fessors  into  handcuffs  and  strait-jackets.     In  the  polemic  and 


218 

anxious  spirit  of  their  time,  they  sought  to  guard  and  con- 
serve the  truths  of  religion,  without  sacrificing  its  freedom 
of  thought  or  investigation.  They  built  their  ship  of  oak 
and  iron,  because  they  meant  it  to  float  on  the  tides  of  time 
and  progress ;  not  to  strand  on  the  rocks  and  shores.  They 
met,  representatives  of  the  differing,  almost  hostile  schools  of 
orthodoxy,  in  a  lofty  spirit  of  Christian  compromise,  and  not 
without  thought,  labor,  perplexity,  and  sometimes  discourage- 
ment, they  framed  a  compromise  creed,  ironclad  enough  for 
security,  comprehensive  enough  for  the  toleration  of  all 
orthodoxy,  put  together  with  such  artistic  Christian  work- 
manship, that  holders  and  emphasizers  of  some  of  its  parts, 
could  yet  accept  the  others,  without  either  breach  of  trust  or 
heterodoxy. 

When  thus  they  founded  their  Seminary,  and  carefully 
protected  it  with  their  creed,  they  meant  to  plant  by  the 
river  of  God  a  tree,  which,  drawing  thence  its  ever-living 
vitality,  through  root  and  trunk  and  branch,  should  ever 
shed  its  fruits  for  the  healing  of  the  nations.  They  did  not, 
in  a  spirit  of  religious  self-sufficiency,  intend  thereby,  to  set 
up  a  cold  stony  monument  of  all  past  attainment,  and  a 
boundary  to  all  future  progress,  with  their  names  upon  its 
base,  and  inscribed  in  old  black  letter,  upon  its  rocky  sides, 
"  Thus  far  and  no  farther  forever." 

I  am  confirmed  in  this  by  the  modest  and  yet  grandly  sub- 
lime words  in  which  they  close  their  Statutes. 

''  To  the  Spirit  of  truth,  to  the  divine  Author  of  our  faith, 
to  the  only  wise  God,  we  desire  in  sincerity  to  present  our 
humble  offering ;  devoutly  imploring  the  Father  of  Light, 
richly  to  endue  with  wisdom  from  above,  all  his  servants,  the 
Visitors  of  this  Foundation,  and  the  Trustees  of  the  Seminary, 
and  with  spiritual  understanding  the  Professors  therein;  that 
being  illuminated  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  iheir  doctrine  may 
drop  as  the  rain,  and  that  their  pupils  may  become  trees  of 
renown,  in  the  Courts  of  our  God,  whereby  He  may  be  glori- 
fied." 

Associate  Stat.  Art.  28. 


219 

I  submit  this  is  not  the  natural  language  of  men,  who  in- 
tended to  set  an  impassal)le  limit  within  their  Institution  to 
all  religions  investigation,  or  who  sought,  "  by  a  complicated 
and  iron-bound  endeavor  to  anchor  the  orthodoxy  of  the  fu- 
ture, as  by  a  chain  cable  to  one  of  its  particular  phases  in  the 
past." 

They  doubtless  intended  to  moor  their  ship  with  anchors 
and  cables  of  more  than  ordinary  solidity  and  strength,  but 
in  doing  so,  they  were  too  good,  and  too  old  navigators,  not 
to  realize  that  if  they  would  have  her  float,  in  safety  even, 
they  must  payout  so  much  of  cable,  as,  with  the  same  ground 
tackle  at  the  bottom,  the  same  hull  upon  the  surface,  and 
the  same  flag  at  her  mast-head,  would  allow  her  to  rise  with 
the  tides,  and  veer  her  bows,  now  east,  now  west,  now  north, 
now  south,  just  as  the  storms  of  assault  came  upon,  or  the 
winds  of  doctrine  blew  over  her. 

They  anchored  their  ship,  whatever  the  anchors  and  cables, 
to  nothing,  but  "the  defence  and  promotion  of  the  Chris- 
tian Religion,  by  making  some  provisions  for  increasing  the 
number  of  learned  and  able  Defenders  of  the  Gospel  of 
Christ,  as  well  as  of  orthodox,  pious  and  zealous  Ministers  of 
the  New  Testament ;  "  and  they  came  to  this  anchorage,  it  may 
be,  aided  by  the  charts  of  Calvin,  and  Hopkins,  and  Emmons, 
and  Spring,  and  Woods,  but  most  of  all  because,  in  their  own 
introductory  words,  they  had  been  "■  seriously  reflecting  upon 
the  fatal  effects  of  the  apostasy  of  man  without  a  saviour,  on 
the  merciful  object  of  the  Son  of  God,  in  assuming  our  na- 
ture, and  dying  for  our  salvation,  and  upon  the  wisdom  of 
his  appointment  of  an  order  of  men  to  preach  his  gospel  in 
the  world  ;  "  and  because  they  desired  to  raise  up  such  an 
order  of  men,  under  the  instruction  of  Professors  "  who 
should,  agi'eeably  to  their  permanent  Creed"  and  "according 
to  the  best  light  God  should  give  "  them  "  faithfully  teach 
that  revealed  Holy  Religion  only,  which  (xod  constantly 
teaches  men  by  his  glorious  works  of  Creation,  Providence, 
and  Redemption." 

Surely  this  Creed  is  not  more  inflexible  and  absolute,  than 
the  law  God  gave  his   chosen   people,  as   they  gathered   at 


220 

Sinai,  or  wandered  in  the  desert.  Our  Divine  Saviour  de- 
clared that  he  came  neither  to  destroy  the  law,  nor  the 
prophets,  and  that  heaven  and  earth  should  pass  away  before 
one  jot  or  one  tittle  should  pass  from  the  law.  And  yet,  as 
he  sat  upon  the  slope  of  Olivet,  teaching  future  teachers,  he 
took  this  law  up,  and  by  interpretation  and  construction  filled 
it  with  new  and  amazing  life,  vigor,  beauty  and  obligation. 

Upon  the  strictest  construction,  the  Creed  cannot  exceed 
in  any  exaction  it  makes,  the  law  of  the  Sabbath,  which 
God  himself  so  respected,  as  to  withhold  the  manna  in  those 
sacred  hours,  whose  rest,  it  was  a  capital  offence  for  man  to 
violate.  Yet  what  new  light  broke  out  of  this  law,  as  it 
passed  under  the  construction  of  the  great  Expounder,  when 
he  looked  upon  the  suffering,  or  walked  with  his  disciples 
through  the  fields  of  corn.  "  In  it  thou  shalt  do  no  work," 
said  the  Statute.  "  It  is  lawful  to  do  good  on  the  Sabbath 
day "  said  the  Expounder.  Construe  by  the  intent  and 
not  the  letter.  "  The  Sabbatli  was  made  for  man,  not  man 
for  the  Sabbath."  This,  to  Jew  and  doctor,  was  new  depar- 
ture. "  It  is  not  lawful  for  thee  to  carry  thy  bed  on  the  Sab- 
bath day."  "  Behold  thy  disciples  do  that  which  is  not  lawful 
on  the  Sabbath  day."  And  they  said  it,  because  they  did 
not  appreciate  the  distinction  between  law  under  the  strict- 
est letter,  and  law  under  divine  construction  and  interpreta- 
tion. They  comprehended  not  the  distinction  between 
abrogating  and  destroying  law,  and  filling  it  with  new  life 
and  energy  by  rightfid  exposition  and  development. 

I  have  dwelt  thus  long  upon  the  proposition  that  this  Creed 
is  open  to  construction  and  interpretation,  because,  it  seems 
to  me  to  be  practically  contested  by  the  ablest  of  the  advo- 
cates of  the  strict,  literal  construction.  Prof.  Park,  "As- 
sociate Creed  of  Andover  Theological  Seminary,"  p.  45, 
says:  —  "  It  is  said  that  a  professor  may  take  the  Associate 
Creed  with  abatements  and  reservations,  because  other  creeds 
are  so  taken,  but  we  reply  :  —  This  Creed  is  not  other  creeds. 
Examine  its  unique  style." .  .  . 

"  Every  distinct  and  complete  statement  begins  in  such  a 
way  that  the  man  who  reads  it,  declares  that  he  believes  it ; 


221 

thus,  the  very  structure  of  the  Creed,  in  its  warp  and  woof, 
binds  the  articles  together  and  holds  them  so  that  not  one 
shall  drop  out.  Every  article  is  to  be  believed  on  its  own 
account,  and  because  it  is  woven  in  with  the  others, — be- 
lieved as  standing  by  itself,  and  as  supported  by  those  around 
it." 

I  do  not  know  by  whom  "  it  is  said  that  a  professor  may 
take  the  Associate  Creed  with  abatements  and  reservations, 
because  other  creeds  are  so  taken."  We  do  not  say  that  the 
Creed  may  be  taken  "  with  reservations  and  al)atements,"  and 
we  are  not  aware  that  other  creeds  are  so  taken.  We  do  say 
that  this  Creed,  like  all  creeds,  from  the  Apostles  down,  may 
be  taken,  and  ought  to  be  taken,  subject  to  all  the  ordinary  rules 
and  principles  of  construction  and  interpretation,  and  in  this 
I  think  we  have  the  support  of  Prof.  Park,  notwithstanding 
the  language  I  have  cited.  For  on  page  78  of  his  pamphlet, 
where  he  is  attempting  to  supply  what  he  felicitously  calls 
"a  hiatus"  in  the  Creed,  "a  mere  vacuum,"  in  reference  to 
the  intermediate  condition  of  the  wicked  immediately  after 
death,  in  regard  to  which  the  Creed  says  nothing  in  express 
terms,  he  says,  "  The  style  of  the  Associate  Creed  resembles 
that  of  many  other  creeds  written  by  Congregational  divines, 
who  have  been  distinguished  for  their  strict  Calvinism  in  re- 
gard to  the  intermediate  state.  We  are  bound  to  interpret  it 
by  the  usage  prevailing  at  the  time  when  the  Creed  was  com- 
posed." He  then  states  what  "  this  usage  indicates."  If  then 
"  the  very  structure  of  the  Creed,  in  its  warp  and  woof,  binds 
the  articles  together  and  holds  them  so  that  not  one  shall 
drop  out,"  it  is  still  elastic  enough  to  let  in,  by  interpretation 
and  usage,  what  in  the  same  pamphlet,  page  78,  is  called  "  an 
omission  in  the  Andover  Creed." 

I  think  we  have  the  support  of  this  ablest  of  the  literal 
constructionists,  farther,  in  the  manly,  earnest,  and  self  re- 
specting language  in  which  he  asserts  his  own  fidelity  to  the 
Creed,  on  pages  85,  6  and  7,  —  "I  thought  that  I  accepted 
the  Creed  in  all  its  details,  as  well  as  in  substance.  I  now 
think  that  I  have  taught  all  its  doctrines  in  the  sense  in- 
tended by  its  chief  framers  "  (p.  86). 


99-? 

And  yet,  if  yon  will  read  the  pamphlets  I  hold  in  my  hand, 
by  Dr.  Dana,  Dr.  Lord  of  Dartmouth  College,  and  a  some- 
what able  lay  writer,  to  say  nothing  of  many  others,  yon  will 
find  that  they  as  sincerely  believed  the  tlien  Abbot  Professor 
guilty  of  "  heterodoxy,"  as  Dr.  Wellman  and  his  associates 
now  do  the  indicted  Brown  Professor.  —  Clearly,  then,  and 
there,  there  were  two  constructions  of  the  Creed.  —  And  had 
your  predecessors  sustained  the  narrow  and  literal  construc- 
tion, they  would  have  taken  from  Andover,  thirty  years  of 
the  grand  life,  labor,  and  influence  of  the  most  eloquent, 
learned,  and  distinguished  theologian  of  his  generation. 

This  attempt  to  limit  this  compromise  Creed,  not  by  right 
and  appropriate  rules  of  construction,  but  by  their  own  special 
dogmas  and  doctrines,  somewhat  aggressively  asserted  by  emi- 
nent and  sincere  men,  has  met  the  administration  of  the  An- 
dover Institution  all  along  its  course.  Dr.  Woods  encountered 
it  in  1808. —  Dr.  Murdock  in  1824,  when  he  came  to  repeat  his 
subscription,  and  the  Trustees,  previously  to  his  subscription, 
requested  him  to  answer  this  question  :  —  "As  the  sermon  on 
the  atonement  which  you  have  published  is  differently  under- 
stood by  different  persons,  the  Trustees  ask  you  the  following 
question,  viz. :  "  Are  all  the  sentiments  contained  in  your 
sermon,  in  your  view,  in  accordance  with  the  Creed  of  this 
Seminary  and  with  all  those  sentiments  which  the  Statutes 
require  its  Professors  to  teach  ?  " 

Dr.  Murdock  answered  in  the  affirmative,  and  then  repeated 
the  Creed. 

Trustee's  Record,  September  22,  1824. 

This  action  must,  of  necessity,  have  had  on  inspection  of 
this  record,  the  supervision  and  approval  of  the  Visitors. 

Dr.  Stuart  encountered  and  conquered  the  attempt  in  his 
day.  Dr.  Park  met  it  with  most  significant  triumph  in  his 
day.  To-day,  his  successor,  with  four  of  his  associate  Pro- 
fessors, confronts  it  in  a  public  prosecution  for  "  heterdoxy." 
Surely,  the  thing  that  has  been,  is  the  thing  that  shall  be,  and 
there  is  nothing  new  under  the  sun. 

It  is  said,  practically,  this  Creed  must  be  construed  as  sui 
generis.     "  This  Creed  is  not  other  creeds.     It  differs  from 


223 

all  other  creeds."  I  do  not  concede  this.  I  believe,  rather, 
that  "  the  style  of  the  Associate  Creed  resembles  that  of 
many  other  creeds,"  and  that  "  we  are  bound  to  interpret  it," 
not  only  "  b}^  the  usage,  prevailing  at  the  time  when  the 
Creed  was  composed,"  but  by  all  the  ordinary  and  usual  rules 
and  principles  of  Statute  and  Credal  construction.  While  I 
am  sure,  if  it  differs  from  other  creeds  in  the  terms  of  its 
subscription,  it  is  wholly  upon  the  liberal  side.  Let  me  read 
the  terms  in  which  professors  in  Theological  seminaries  of 
the  Presbyterian  Church,  in  this  country,  are  required  to 
subscribe. 

"  In  the  presence  of  God  and  of  the  directors  of  this  Semi- 
nary, I  do  solemnly  and  ex  animo  adopt,  receive,  and  subscribe 
the  Confession  of  Faith  and  Catechisms  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  in  the  United  States  of  America,  as  the  Confes^ion 
of  my  faith,  or  as  a  summary  and  just  exhibition  of  that 
system  of  doctrine  and  religious  belief  which  is  contained 
in  holy  scripture,  and  therein  revealed  by  God  to  man  for 
his  salvation  ;  and  I  do  solemnly  ex  animo  profess  to  receive 
the  Form  of  Government  of  said  Church  as  agreeable  to  the 
inspired  oracles.  And  I  do  solemnly  promise  and  engage  not 
to  inculcate,  teach,  or  insinuate  any  thing  which  shall  appear 
to  me  to  contradict  or  contravene,  either  directly  or  impliedly, 
any  thing  taught  in  the  said  Confession  of  Faith  or  Cate- 
chisms ;  nor  to  oppose  any  of  the  fundamental  principles  of 
Presbyterian  Church  Government  while  I  shall  continue  a 
professor  in  this  seminary." 

To  this  declaration,  confession,  and  promise,  old  school, 
and  new  school,  together,  now  constituting  the  Presby- 
terian Church  of  the  United  States,  alike  ex  animo  subscribe. 
Would  the  prosecutors  and  defenders  of  the  heresy  charged 
upon  Lyman  Beecher,  or  Albert  Barnes,  construe  and  inter- 
pret all  parts  of  this  "  system  of  doctrine  and  religious 
belief "  in  the  same  sense  ?  And  is  the  Andover  Creed 
more  narrow,  or  more  liberal ;  more  explicit,  or  more  general, 
than  this  ?  Can  a  subscriber,  solemnly  and  ex  animo,  to  this 
Presbyterian  system  of  doctrine,  subscribe  to  the  Andover 
Creed  without  "  heterodoxy  "  ? 


224 

This  is  not  only  a  question  of  construction,  but  of  some 
practical  significance ;  because  Art.  2,  Stat.,  requires  every 
professor  to  be  "  an  ordained  Minister  of  the  Congregational 
or  Presbyterian  denomination."  And  further,  because  if 
under  strict  and  iron  construction  the  time  shall  arrive, 
when  no  professor  and  no  visitor  will  consent  to  subscribe 
the  Creed  as  it  stands  at  present,  so  that  "  it  will  soon  be, 
if  it  is  not  now,  antiquated  and  obsolete,"  Prof.  Park  gives 
us  the  quieting  assurance  that,  "  the  Seminary  is  free  to 
invite  its  professors  and  visitors  from  the  Presbyterian 
Church  north,  south,  east,  or  west ;  -and  when  the  whole 
Presbyterian  Church  in  America  has  departed  from  the 
Confession,  the  Seminary  can  import  its  professors  from 
Scotland." 

The  Associate  Creed,  etc.,  p.  97. 

And  so  notwithstanding  the  long  and  painful  discussions 
and  labors  of  the  Founder's  counsellors,  the  Creed  is  elastic 
enough   to   take   within  its  comprehension,  professors,   who 
"solemnly  and  ex  awmo,  adopt,  receive,  and  subscribe  the 
Confession   of    Faith,    and    Catechism    of    the    Presbyterian 
Church  in  the  United  States  of  America  as  the  confession 
of   their   faith,"    and    "  the    Form    of   Government   of  said 
Church  as  agreeable  to   the  inspired  oracles."     In  view  of 
the  history  of  the  Statutes  and  Creed,  this  construction  is 
broadly  liberal,  and  it  is  not  surprising  that  the  learned  Pro- 
fessor should  guard  it  from  all  application  on  the  liberal  side 
of  Orthodoxy,  with  this  sentence.     "  The  Seminary  is  liberal 
towards  all  men  of  the  two  denominations,  who  adopt  the 
substance  of  the  Shorter  Catechism  as  that  substaiice  is  ex- 
pressed in  the  Creed,  and  is  exclusive  toward  all  men,  who 
do  not  adopt  the  substance  of  the  Catechism,  as  that  sub- 
stance is  expressed  in  the  Creed." 

The  Associate  Creed,  p.  97. 

As  this  respondent   adopts   whatever    "  substance   is   ex- 
pressed in  the  Creed,"  he  is  clearly  entitled,  in  like  manner 


225 

with  American  and  Scotch  Presbyterians,  to  the  consequent 
liberality  of  the  Seminary. 

If,  then,  these  Statutes  and  this  Creed  are  subject  to  the 
ordinary  rules  and  principles  of  construction  and  interpre- 
tation, what  are  these  rales  and  principles?  They  are  not 
only  everywhere  fixed  and  settled,  but  they  have  been  so 
conclusively  determined,  and  asserted  in  their  application 
to  these  precise  Statutes  and  this  Creed,  that  they  are  no 
longer  open  to  doubt. , 

The  first  of  the  Statutes,  those  of  Phillips  and  others, 
were  made  and  accepted  in  August  and  September,  1807 ; 
the  associate  Statutes  in  March,  1808  ;  and  the  additional 
Statutes  of  the  originnl  Founders,  by  which  they  came  into 
experimental  coalition  with  the  associate  Founders,  in  May, 
1808.  By  all  the  Statutes,  the  Justices  of  the  Supreme 
Judicial  Court  are  made  the  Supreme  Appellate  Board  of 
Visitors. 

Judge  Jackson,  then  at  the  bar,  is  said  traditionally,  to 
have  examined  and  revised  these  Statutes. 

And  Prof.  Park  says,  "  Associate  Creed,  etc.,  p.  48,  9, 
"  The  provision  for  an  appeal  to  the  Supreme  Court  was 
made  after  a  lengthened  consultation  with  such  eminent 
lawyers  as  Gov.  Caleb  Strong  of  Northampton,  and  Hon. 
George  Bliss  of  Springfield." 

By  these  Statutes  it  is  provided  that  if  after  an  experiment 
of  "  seven  years  coalition,  upon  visitatorial  principles,  it  shall 
appear  to  the  Board  of  Visitors  that  the  visitatorial  system  is 
either  unsafe  or  inexpedient,"  it  may  be  dissolved  as  specially 
provided  therein. 

Art.  28,  Associate  Statutes. 

By  Art.  27,  the  Founders  reserved  the  right  within  seven 
years  "  to  make  such  amendments  or  additional  articles," 
etc.,  "  as  upon  experience  and  due  consideration  shall  be 
deemed  necessary,  the  more  effectually  to  secure  and  promote 
the  real  design  of  this  our  Foundation." 

At  this  time  the  associate  Founders,  with  Mr.  Abbot,  Dr. 
Timothy   Dwight,    Hon.    George    Bliss,    and    Dr.    Samuel 


226 

Spring  were  the  visitors ;  and  they  so  continued,  with  the 
exception  of  Mr.  Abbot,  and  Mr.  Norris  who  died,  to  the 
end  of  the  seven  years'  experiment. 

Associate  Stat.  Art.  12,  Ad.  Stat.  Art.  2. 

In  1811,  Mrs.  Norris,  widow  of  Joh;i  Norris,  one  of  the 
associate  Founders,  died,  and  left  a  legacy  of  130,000  to  the 
associate  Foundation,  to  which  her  husband  had  made  his 
donation. 

This  legacy  the  heirs,  or  Executor  of  Mrs.  Norris,  keen 
as  any  theological  doctor  on  the  scent  for  heresy,  refused  to 
pay,  upon  the  ground  that  the  Statutes  and  Creed  of  the  as- 
sociate Founders  were  so  "  heterodox  "  to,  and  inconsistent  tvith, 
those  of  the  original  founders  of  Phillips  Academy,  that  the 
Trustees  could  not  take  the  legacy. 

It  is  not  a  little  significant,  that  the  first  charge  of  heresy, 
or  "  heterodoxy,"  against  any  body  connected  with  the 
Seminary,  barring  the  objection  of- Dr.  Dana  to  the  appoint- 
ment of  Dr.  Woods,  was  against  the  associate  Founders  them- 
selves. It  was  practically  charged  upon  them,  and  argued 
by  the  most  eminent  counsel  in  the  Commonwealth,  that 
they  had  established  within  the  iron-guarded,  Calvinistic 
precincts  of  Phillips  Academy,  an  institution  with  statutes 
and  creed  utterly  "  heterodox "  to  the  creed  of  the  Phil- 
lipses. 

The  then  Trustees  of  the  Academy  invoked  the  decision  of 
the  Supreme  Court,  and  brought  suit  for  the  legacy.  This 
suit  was  heard  by  the  Court  in  November,  1814  ;  and  brought 
distinctly  before  the  Court  the  Statutes  of  the  Founders  of 
the  Academy,  and  the  Statutes  and  Creed  of  the  Associate 
Founders  for  construction  and  interpretation.  The  case  was 
instituted  and  conducted  under  the  supervision  of  the  Treas- 
urer, Mr.  Samuel  Farrar,  who  had  been  the  legal  draughts- 
man of  the  associate  Statutes,  and  under  that  of  the  Trustees, 
among  whom  were  three  of  the  Phillips  faiiiily,  and  Drs. 
Pearson,  Dana,  Morse,  and  Holmes.  The  case  was  argued 
for  tlie  Executor  by  Mr.  Dexter,  and  Mr.  Merrill,  and  for  the 


227 

Trustees  by  Mr.  Prescott  and  Nathan  Dane.  As  I  under- 
stand, neither  of  the  eminent  counsel  of  the  Trustees  sym- 
pathized in  the  religious  views  of  the  Trustees,  —  they  must 
have  presented  the  case,  in  argument,  as  specially  instructed 
by  them,  and  to  their  entire  satisfaction  —  I  infer,  as  I  see  by 
the  records,  they  paid  them  some  $2500  for  the  service.  The 
Court  reserved  their  decision  four  months,  until  March,  1815, 
when  they  gave  it,  as  reported  in  Trustees  Phillips  Academy 
vs.  King,  Executor. 

12  Massachusetts  Report,  546. 

To  this  decision  I  now  ask  attention.  The  earlier  part  of 
it  js  concerned  with  a  question  of  technical  law,  whether  a 
corporation  is  capable  of  taking  aud  holding  property  as 
trustee  (p.  553). 

The  other  question  discussed  is  the  construction  and  inter- 
pretation of  the  Statutes.  To  this  I  call  your  attention  in 
detail. 

"  Another  objection  is  urged  upon  us,  —  'That  the  legacy 
is  void ;  because  the  trustees  of  Phillips  Academy,  by  the 
act  of  June,  1807,  were  made  capable  only  to  hold  property 
for  the  support  of  a  theological  institution,  agreeably  to  the 
will  of  the  donors,  if  consistent  with  the  original  design  of 
the  founders  of  the  academy.  And  the  original  design  of  the 
founders  of  the  said  academy  was  to  propagate  Calvinism,  as 
containing  the  important  principles  and  distinguishing  tenets 
of  our  holy  Christian  religion,  as  summarily  expressed  in  the 
Westminster  Assembly's  shorter  catechism  :  whereas  the  de- 
sign of  the  donors  of  the  associate  foundation  is  to  add  to 
Calvinism  the  distinguishing  principles  of  Hopkinsianism, 
an  union  or  mixture  inconsistent  with  the  original  design  of 
the  original  founders  of  the  academy  and  of  the  theological 
institution." 

"  This  objection  appears  to  me  to  be  founded  on  a  mistaken 
view  of  the  original  design  of  the  founders  of  this  academy ; 
which,  as  far  as  it  can  be  collected  from  the  case  agreed,  ap- 
pears to  have  been  to  teach  youth  the  great  end  and  real 


228 

business  of  living ;  to  convince  them  that  goodness  and 
knowledge  must  be  united  to  form  the  most  perfect  charac- 
ter in  human  life  ;  that  vice,  in  the  most  comprehensive  sense, 
ought  to  be  hated  and  avoided  ;  and  that  virtue,  in  an  equally 
extensive  sense,  ought  to  be  loved  and  praised  :  to  cultivate, 
establish  and  perpetuate  in  the  Christian  church  the  true  and 
fundamental  principles  of  the  Christian  religion,  as  far  as  that 
institution  might  have  influence,  by  an  early  inculcation  of 
those  principles  on  the  minds  of  the  pupils.  And  after 
detailing  a  number  of  particulars,  as  means  to  accomplish  the 
end  and  design  of  the  institution,  it  is  declared  that  the  first 
and  principal  object  of  the  institution  is  t]je  promotion  of 
true  piety  and  virtue  ;  the  second  the  instruction  of  the 
English,  Greek  and  Latin  languages,  together  with  writing, 
arithmetic,  music,  and  the  art  of  speaking;  the  third,  practi- 
cal geometry,  logic  and  geography ;  and  the  fourth,  such 
other  of  the  liberal  arts,  sciences  and  languages,  as  oppor- 
tunity might  thereafter  admit,  and  as  the  trustees  should 
direct.  The  name  of  Calvin  or  Calvinism,  as  the  end  and 
object  of  the  institution,  is  not  mentioned.  The  objec- 
tion therefore  avails  nothing  against  the  legacy  in  ques- 
tion. 

"The  objection  seems  to  have  confounded  the  benefactors 
to  the  academy,  on  whose  bounty  the  theological  institution 
or  seminary  is  established,  with  the  original  founders  of  the 
academy.  For  although  it  is  true  that  Mr.  John  Philli2:)s  was 
one  of  the  founders  of  the  academy,  we  must,  in  this  instance, 
distinguish  between  him  as  a  founder  and  as  an  after  donbr 
or  benefactor.  In  his  will  he  directs  tlie  donation  therein 
given  to  the  trustees  of  this  academy,  to  be  appropriated  to 
the  support  of  such  charity  scholars  as  miglit  be  designed  for 
the  Gospel  ministry,  and  having  received  the  first  part  of 
their  education  at  the  academy,  and  before  a  theological  pro- 
fessor should  be  instituted  in  this  or  in  the  Exeter  academy, 
as  was  expected  in  some  future  time,  they  might  be  assisted 
in  their  theological  studies  under  the  direction  of  some  emi- 
nent Calvinistic  minister  of  the  gospel ;  until  such  time  as  an 
able,  pious,  orthodox  instructor  should  be  supported  in   one 


229 

or  other  of  those  academies,  as  a  professor  of  divinit}-,  by 
whom  they  might  be  tauglit  the  important  principles  and 
distinguishing  tenets  of  our  holy  Christian  religion. 

"It  deserves  notice,  and  is  evidential  of  the  good  sense  and 
vital  Christianity  of  tliis  holy  man,  that  although  this  instruc- 
tion was  to  be  from  some  eminent  Calvinistic  minister,  until 
an  ortliodox  instructor  (that  is,  one  who  should  teach,  ex- 
plain and  inculcate  the  important  principles  and  distinguish- 
ing tenets  of  the  religion  of  Jesus,  as  it  had  been  delivered 
to  the  saints)  should  be  instituted ;  yet  he  is  to  teach  noth- 
ing but  our  holy  Christian  religion.  He  is  not  to  teach 
Calvinism. 

"  If  it  be  objected,  that  Calvinism  and  Christianity  are  iden- 
tically the  same,  then  it  seems  to  me  that  the  principle  of  the 
objection  would  be  to  give  the  preference  to  Calvin  over 
Jesus  as  a  religious  instructor,  and  to  rob  the  latter  of 
some  honor  and  glory,  which  I  have  ever  considered  as  be- 
longing to  him  over  all  his  followers  and  other  teachers." 

"  The  deed  from  Mrs.  Phoebe  Phillips  and  others  to  the 
trustees  of  Phillips  Academy,  containing  the  constitution  of 
the  theological  seminar^',  alludes  to  the  Westminster  Assem- 
bly's shorter  catechism  :  but  I  can  find  nothing  of  Calvinism 
as  the  object  of  their  intended  foundation  ;  except  once,  where 
they  quote  a  passage  from  the  will  of  Mr.  John  Phillips. 
And  although  the  preamble  to  the  statute  of  June  1807, 
enlarging  the  capacity  of  the  trustees  of  Phillips  Academy, 
has  the  words  "  in  furtherance  of  the  designs  of  the  pious 
founders  and  benefactors  of  said  academy,"  it  is  very  clear 
that  the  legislature  did  not  intend  to  comprehend  the  after 
benefactors  of  the  academy  witJi  the  original  founders  ;  be- 
cause when  the  law  directs  how  the  increased  revenue  should 
be  disposed  of,  it  provides  that  it  shall  always  be  applied 
"  to  said  objects  "  [that  is,  for  the  purpose  of  promoting  the 
theological  institution]  "  agreeably  to  the  will  of  the  donors, 
if  "  [that  will  or  those  objects  be]  "  consistent  with  the  origi- 
nal design  of  the  founders  of  the  said  academy." 

"  It  was  but  reasonable  for  the  legislature,  when  increas- 
ing the  capacity  of  the  trustees,  and  enabling  them  to  extend 


230 

the  objects  of  education,  to  take  care  that  this  should  be 
done  in  a  manner  not  inconsistent  with  the  design  of  the 
orimnal  founders,  who  were  dead.  But  there  was  not  the 
same,  or  indeed  any  reason  at  all,  for  the  legislature  to  inter- 
fere in  what  then  was,  or  what  might  afterwards  become  a 
matter  of  dispute  between  two  sets  of  donors  or  benefactors  ; 
the  bounty  of  neither  of  whom  had  been  accepted  by  the 
trustees,  and  who  were  capable  of  adjusting  and  appropriat- 
ing their  own  bounties. 

"  I  should  not  have  thought  it  necessary  to  take  any  fur- 
ther notice  of  this  objection,  were  it  not  that  the  counsel  for 
the  defendant  brought  forward  in  the  argument,  and  urged 
upon  the  consideration  of  the  court  with  great  force,  several 
specific  propositions  or  articles  of  two  opposing   creeds,    or 
which  the  counsel  contended  were  directly  contrary  to  each 
other ;  insisting  that  the  intent  of  the  founders  was  to  main- 
tain Calvinism,  or  the  theology  of  Calvin  ;  and  if  there  were 
but   one    single    article    or  proposition,  in  the  creed  of  the 
associate   founders,    contrary   to    Calvinism,  the  trustees   of 
the  academy  would  have  no  right  to  take  and  appropriate 
the  legacy  in  question  ;  and  should  the  creed  imposed  by  the 
associate  founders  omit  a  single  article  contained  in  the  creed 
of  Calvin,  or  as  Calvinism  was  understood  at  the  time  of  the 
foundation  of  the   academy,  it  would  be  such  a  departure 
from'  the  intent,  design  and  plan  of  the  original  founders, 
that  it  must  intercept  the  intended  legacy,  and  prevent  any 
right  from  vesting  in  the  plaintiffs.     It  was  then  stated  to  be 
an  essential  article  in  the  creed  of  Calvin,  and  what  all  Cal- 
vinists  must  necessarily  believe,  to   make  them  Christians 
according  to  the  Calvinistie  theology,  '  that  the  original  sin 
of  Adam  is  imputed  to  all  his  posterity,  in  some  way  or  man- 
ner, that  they  are  all  and  every  one  actual  sinners  ; '  whereas 
the    associate   foundation  did  not  admit  this  article  in   the 
creed   taught  in   their  branch  of  the  theological  school,  but 
substituted  the  following  article  in  lieu  thereof,  and  made  it 
a  necessary  part  of  the  religious  creed  of  the  professors,  and 
to  be  by  them  taught  to  the  students  in  the  institution  ;  viz., 
'  Adam,  the  federal  head  and  representative  of  the  humau 


231 

race,  was  placed  in  a  state  of  probation,  and  in  consequence 
of  his  disobedience  all  his  descendants  were  constituted  sin- 
ners,' —  which  latter  article,  it  was  urged,  is  not  only  an  arti- 
cle of  a  system  of  religion  called  Hopkinsianism,  but  it  is 
so  inconsistent  with,  and  contrary  to  the  system  of  Calvin- 
ism in  general,  and  particularly  to  the  foregoing  article  of 
the  creed  of  Calvin,  or  of  a  Calvinistic  Christian,  as  taught 
in  the  assembly's  shorter  catechism,  as  could  not  be  taught 
in  consistency  and  harmony  with  the  design,  views  and  in- 
tentions of  the  original  founders  of  the  academy :  and  thus 
the  legacy  being  given  to  promote  Hopkinsianism  in  opposi- 
tion to  Calvinism,  as  explained  in  the  said  catechism,  is  void, 
and  ought  not  or  rather  cannot  be  recovered  by  the  plain- 
tiffs, who,  as  trustees  of  the  academy,  cannot  take  any  dona- 
tion or  bequest  contrary  to  the  intent  of  the  founders. 

"  To  this  objection,  thus  drawn  out  and  explained  nearly 
in  the  words  of  the  eloquent  argument,  it  is  enough  to  reply, 
There  is  a  clear,  intelligible  meaning,  consistent  with  the 
whole  course  of  the  providential  government  of  God  over 
the  natural  and  moral  world  by  general  laws,  so  far  as  the 
subject  has  been  investigated,  which  may  be  applied  to  the 
two  articles  attempted  to  be  contrasted,  with  no  greater  lati- 
tude in  the  use  of  language,  than  is  frequently  applied  by 
orthodox  divines  to  words  and  phrases  in  the  Bible,  not 
always  to  be  taken  literally  :  in  which  sense  these  proposi- 
tions or  articles  will  mean  the  same  thing.  And  in  such 
sense  they  are  consistent  with  the  revelations  contained  in 
the  Bible  ;  which  revelations  make  up  the  fundamental  prin- 
ciples of  the  religion  of  Jesus.  Hence  there  is  no  necessity 
of  conjecturing  a  variety  of  meanings,  which  the  words  may 
possibly  be  susceptible  of,  in  minds  more  habituated  to  dwell 
on  the  theories  of  certain  divines,  than '  on  the  religion  of 
Jesus,  as  delivered  by  himself  and  those  who  are  authorized 
by  God  the  Father  to  preach  it.  And  I  hesitate  not  to  say, 
that  in  all  cases  like  this,  we  ought  to  be  satisfied,  whenever 
we  can  reconcile  the  language  of  honest  Christians  by  yield- 
ing to  them  that  charity  of  construction,  which  it  is  allowed 
b}^  all  that  we  should  apply  to  the  Holy  Scriptures. 


232 

"  For  myself  I  confess  that  I  do  not  clearly  perceive  any 
other  sense,  than  that  in  which  tlie  two  articles  mean  sub- 
stantially the  same  thing,  notwithstanding  some  diversity  of 
expression,  in  which  they  can  be  said  to  be  true,  and  con- 
sistent with  the  Christian  religion.  And,  knowing  as  we  all 
do,  the  founders,  as  well  as  the  after-benefactors  who  have 
set  up  the  associate  foundation,  to  be  persons  of  great  piety 
and  most  sincere  believers  in  the  religion  of  Jesus;  and  that 
the  first  and  principal  object  with  all  of  them  has  been  to 
establish,  teach  and  enforce  the  belief  and  practice  of  that 
religion  on  the  students  of  the  institution,  and  through  them 
on  the  whole  world  of  mankind;  —  why  should  we  now  be 
called  upon  to  apply  a7i  astute^  narrow  and  uncliaritahle  con- 
struction upon  a  few  technical  propositions,  merely  to  divert 
the  legacy  of  a  pious  woman  from  an  object  nearer  to  her 
than  life  itself?  —  And  let  me  add,  in  this  case,  the  ol)ject  is 
great  and  noble,  beyond  almost  any  thing  in  our  countr3^ 

"  The  same  course  of  reasoning  and  observations  would 
apply  to  the  objection,  as  it  was  attempted  to  be  applied  to 
a  supposed  contradiction  between  some  other  tenets  of  the 
two  supposed  opposing  systems  of  theology.  But  it  cannot 
be  necessary  to  protract  this  opinion  more  in  detail,  on  this 
general  objection." 

It  may  be  urged,  and  granted,  that  all  that  is  here  said  is 
not  necessary  to  the  decision  ;  and  hence  is  obiter  dicta.  It 
may  be  said,  the  Justices  of  the  court  were  Unitarian,  and 
hence  coming  under  one  of  the  anathemas  of  the  Creed,  were 
incapable  of  making,  or  indisposed  to  make,  the  clear  dis- 
tinctions, or  unable  to  appreciate  the  precise  formulated  doc- 
trines of  the  great  Masters  of  orthodox  theology.  —  All  this 
may,  or  may  not  be  true,  without  touching,  in  the  slightest, 
the  force  of  my  inferences  and  argument. 

This  court  was  the  body,  which  the  associate  Founders  had 
made,  after  mature  deliberation,  their  appellate  and  supreme 
visitors.  It  was  the  tribunal  before  which  they,  and  not  their 
opponents,  brought  their  case. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  but  that  the  court,  in  this  case,  be 
it  in  decision  or  dicta,  did  discuss  and  determine   the   con- 


233 

struction  of  these  Statutes,  and  state  distinctly  the  principles 
of  interpretation  to  be  applied  to  them. 

When  this  decision  was  made  in  March,  1815,  Bartlet  and 
Brown  of  the  associate  Founders  were  living,  and  with  Mr. 
Bliss,  Dr.  Dwight,  and  Dr.  Spring,  constituted  the  Board  of 
Visitors.  His  Honor,  William  Phillips,  Hon.  John  Phillips, 
Andover,  Hon.  John  Phillips,  Boston,  Samuel  Farrar,  Drs. 
Morse,  Pearson,  Dana,  and  Holmes,  were  Trustees. 

The  experimental  seven  years'  "  coalition  "  of  the  Statutes 
expired  in  May,  1815,  after  this  decision.  This  brought  the 
whole  matter  of  Statutes  and  Creed  entirely  within  the  con- 
trol of  Visitors  and  Trustees. 

Associate  Statutes,  Art.  28,  Stat,  and  Deeds,  p.  99. 

"■  If  after  an  experiment  of  seven  years'  coalition,  upon 
visitatorial  principles,  it  shall  appear  to  the  Board  of  Vis- 
itors, that  the  visitatorial  system  is  either  unsafe  or  inexpe- 
dient, the  coalition  may,  nevertheless,  be  continued  upon 
such  other  principlesior  system  as  may  be  then  agreed  upon 
by  the  Trustees  and  Visitors  aforesaid,  in  consistency  with 
the  original  design  of  this  our  Foundation,"  or  the  fund 
might  be  withdrawn,  etc.  "  But  if  at  the  expiration  of  the 
seven  years'  experiment,  or  within  the  said  term  of  seven 
years,  the  Board  of  Visitors  and  the  Trustees  aforesaid  be 
well  satisfied  with  the  safety  and  expediency  of  the  visita- 
torial system,  and  that  a  perpetual  coalition  is  important,  and 
desirable,  union  shall  be  established  upon  visitatorial  princi- 
ples, to  continue,  as  the  sun  and  moon,  forever." 

How  opportune  came  this  decision,  at  the  moment  this 
large  responsibility  devolved  upon  Visitors  and  Trustees,  to 
help  them  meet  it !  How  still  more  opportune,  that  it 
came  in  the  lifetime  of  the  Founders,  —  and  while  Dr.  Dana 
was  upon  the  Board  of  Trustees  "  to  sound  the  alarm,"  and 
other  eminent  doctor's,  as  well  as  several  distinguished  mem- 
bers of  the  Phillips  family  were  there  to  take  up  its  warning 
sound  ! 

What  did  those  Visitors  and   Trustees?     Professor  Park 


234 

says  (The  Associate  Creed,  etc.,  p.  81),  "  In  the  years 
1815-16,  the  whole  constitution  of  the  Seminary  was  re- 
considered by  the  two  boards  of  visitors  and  trustees,  and 
no  cliange  was  made  in  it ;  there  was  no  mitigation  of  its 
strictness." 

No,  "  there  was  no  mitigation  of  its  strictness,"  because 
the  Supreme  Court  had  just  considered  it,  and  significantly 
asked  why  the}^  "  should  be  called  upon  to  apply  an  astute, 
narrow,  and  uncharitable  construction  upon  a  few  technical 
propositions  ;  "  and  had  declared  "  there  is  no  necessity  of  con- 
jecturing a  variety  of  meanings  which  the  words  may  possibly 
be  susceptible  of,  in  minds  more  habituated  to  dwell  on  the 
theories  of  certain  divines  than  on  the  religion  of  Jesus,  as 
delivered  by  himself  and  those  who  were  authorized  by  God 
the  Father  to  preach  it.  And  I  hesitate  not  to  say,  that  in 
all  cases  like  this,  we  ought  to  be  satisfied  whenever  we  can 
reconcile  the  language  of  honest  Christians,  by  yielding  to 
them  that  charity  of  construction,  which  it  is  allowed  by  all, 
that  we  should  apply  to  the  Holy  Scriptures." 

Visitors  and  Trustees  had  no  reason  to  mitigate  the  strict- 
ness of  Statutes,  so  construed  and  interpreted,  and  under 
which  construction  they  had  just  claimed  and  taken  a  large 
legac}'. —  But  what  is  more  significant,  they  neither  criticised, 
questioned,  nor  repudiated  this  construction :  —  more,  they 
accepted  and  affirmed  this  construction.  The  whole  con- 
stitution of  the  Seminary  was  reconsidered  just  after  this 
decision,  and  certainly,  in  its  light.  — To  this  Seminary  it  was 
not  only  a  decision  in  an  important  litigation,  but  the  delib- 
erate opinion  of  its  ultimate  visitors. 

What  was  the  result  of  this  reconsideration  by  Visitors 
and  Trustees,  made  just  eighteen  months  after  the  decision 
of  the  Supreme  Court  ? 

Let  me  read  it  as  it  stands  recorded,  on  pages  148  and  149 
of  the  Trustees'  Record  for  September,  1816. 

Record,  Deeds,  and  Donations,  p.  136. 


235 

"  The  following  communication  was  received  from  the 
Visitors,  viz.  :  — 

"  At  a  meeting  of  the  Board  of  Visitors  of  the  Theological 
Seminarj^  in  Andover,  Sept.  25,  1816  —  whereas  by  the 
twenty-eighth  Article  of  the  Statutes  of  the  Associate  Found- 
ers of  said  Institution  it  is  provided,  that  if,  after  an  experi- 
ment of  seven  years  the  Board  of  Visitors  and  the  Trustees 
of  Phillips  Academy  are  well  satisfied  with  the  safety  and 
expediency  of  the  Visitatorial  system,  and  that  a  perpetual 
coalition  is  important  and  desirable ;  —  union  shall  be  estab- 
lished upon  Visitatorial  principles,  to  continue  forever:  — 
Voted,  that  the  Board  of  Visitors  are  well  satisfied  with  said 
system,  and  that  a  perpetual  coalition  upon  said  principles 
is,  in  their  opinion,  important  and  desirable,  and  that  the 
concurrence  of  the  Board  of  Trustees  of  Phillips  Academy 

herein  be  requested. 

Samuel  Spring,  Secretary. 

"  Whereupon,  Voted,  that  this  Board  are  well  satisfied  with 
the  safety  and  expediency  of  said  system,  and  that  a  perpet- 
ual union  is  important  and  desirable,  and  they  do  concur 
with  the  request  of  the  Board  of  Visitors,  and  declare  that 
the  perpetual  union  contemplated  by  the  Statutes  is  estab- 
lished." 

But  this  affirmation  of  the  living  associate  Founders  by  no 
means  stopped  with  their  acts  as  visitors.  In  January  and 
February,  1817,  with  this  decision  of  tlie  Court,  and  this 
action  of  the  Visitors  and  Trustees  open  before,  and  partici- 
pated in  by,  him,  Mr.  Bartlet  provides  the  Seminary  with  a 
chapel,  and  on  the  8th  of  May,  and  the  15th  of  Septem- 
ber, 1818,  conveyed  it,  with  other  lands,  completed  and  fur- 
nished, to  the  Trustees,  subject  to  these  associate  Statutes, 
just  then  construed  by  the  court,  and  made  permanent,  with- 
out change,  by  himself  and  his  associate  Visitors. 

Deeds  and  Donations,  pp.  137,  139,  143. 


236 

February  8,  1819,  only  four  years  after  the  Court's  decision, 
and  three  after  that  of  himself  and  associate  Visitors,  practi- 
cally confirming  it,  Moses  Brown,  the  other  surviving  F'ound- 
er,  founded,  with  a  donation  of  twenty-five  thousand  dollars, 
the  professorship,  which  Professor  Smyth  now  holds,  and 
placed  it  under  these  same  associate  Statutes,  just  then  so 
recently  construed  by  the  Court,  and  thereafter  by  himself 
and  associate  visitors  made  perpetual. 

In  March,  1820,  Mr.  Bartlet  asked  leave  of  the  Trustees 
to  put  up  another  College  for  the  use  of  the  Seminary,  and 
in  September,  1821,  tendered  it  complete  to  them,  "  to  be  for- 
ever used  for  the  sole  purpose  of  promoting  the  interests  of 
said  Seminar}^,  according  to  the  Constitution  and  Statutes 
of  the  same." 

Deeds  and  Donations,  p.  161. 

In  1821  the  Trustees  and  Visitors,  by  a  unanimous  vote, 
applied  for  and  obtained  an  act  of  the  Legislature,  by  which 
Moses  Brown,  William  Bartlet,  George  Bliss,  Calvin  Chapin, 
and  Jeremiah  Day,  the  then  Visitors,  were  made  a  corpora- 
tion, by  the  name  of  the  Visitors  of  the  Theological  Institu- 
tion in  Phillips  Academy,  in  Andover.  By  the  third  section 
of  this  act,  an  appeal  from  the  Visitors  was  given  to  any  per- 
son aggrieved  by  any  act  of  theirs  "  contrary  to  the  Statutes 
of  the  Founders  of  said  Institution,"  or  in  excess  of  their 
jurisdiction;  to  the  Supreme  Judicial  Court,  and  they  were 
further  "authorized  to  declare  null  and  void  any  decree  or 
sentence  of  the  Visitors,  which  they  may  consider  contrary 
to  the  Statutes  of  the  Founders,  and  beyond  the  just  limits 
of  the  powers  prescribed  to  them  thereby,"  while  nothing  in 
the  act  contained  was  to  be  construed  to  limit  or  restrain  the 
Court  from  exercising  all  such  jurisdiction  over  the  Visitors 
as  "  they  might  exercise  had  not  this  special  provision  been 
made." 

Act  Jan.  17,  1821,  Deeds  and  Donations,  p.  165. 

They  thus  made  these  Statutes  a  Statute  of  the  Common- 
wealth. 


237 

Can  there  be  any  doubt,  after  these,  their  acts  and  doings, 
and  omissions  to  do,  of  the  broad,  tolerant,  progressive  and 
effective  spirit,  in  which  the  Founders  expected  and  intended 
these,  their  Statutes  should  be  construed  and  accepted  ? 
To-day,  seventy  years  after  its  utterance  in  the  ears  of  the 
Founders,  we  simply  ask  you  to  adopt  the  language  of  the 
Supreme  Court.  "  Knowing,  as  we  all  do,  the  Founders,  as 
well  as  the  after-benefactors,  who  have  set  up  the  associate 
foundation,  to  be  persons  of  great  piety,  and  most  sincere 
believers  in  the  religion  of  Jesus  ;  and  that  the  first  and  princi- 
pal object^  with  all  of  them,  has  been  to  teach  and  enforce  the 
belief  and  practice  of  that  religion  on  the  students  of  the  in- 
stitution, and  through  them  on  the  whole  world  of  mankind, 
why  should  we  be  now  called  upon  to  apply  an  astute^  narrow^ 
and  uncharitahle  construction  upon  a  few  technical  proposi- 
tions?" 

We  simply  ask  you,  with  them,  to  say  we  "  hesitate  not  to 
say  that,  in  all  cases  like  this,  we  ought  to  be  satisfied,  when- 
ever we  can  reconcile  the  language  of  honest  Christians  by 
yielding  to  them  that  charity  of  construction,  which  it  is 
allowed  by  all  that  we  should  apply  to  the  Holy  Scriptures." 

12  Mass.  Rep.  563-4. 

Upon  the  construction  made  by  the  highest  Court  of  the 
Commonwealth,  and  the  designated  appellate  and  ultimate 
Visitors  of  the  Institution,  in  the  lifetime  of  the  Founders, 
and  accepted,  confirmed,  and  ratified,  as  thus  shown  by  them, 
we  take  our  stand. 

But  we  go  farther,  and  assert  that  this  same  construction 
was  not  only  accepted,  by  the  original  Founders,  Trustees, 
and  Visitors,  but  that  it  has  been  adhered  to  by  all  Trustees 
and  Visitors,  from  the  impeachment  of  Dr.  Woods,  the  first, 
to  that  of  Dr.  Harris,  the  last  Abbot  Professor. 

There  was  one  conscientious  and  able  Trustee,  heresy 
haunted  and  aggressive,  who  stood  by  the  Seminary  at  its  birth, 
and  opposed  the  appointment  of  Dr.  Woods,  as  first  Abbot 
Professor,  by  the  Founder  himself,  for  that  he  suspected  or 


238 

feared  in  him  "  heterodoxy  "  to  Calvinism  or  the  Creed,  one 
or  both.  —  That  he  had  some  ground  for  this  suspicion  seems 
to  he  conceded  by  Dr.  Woods,  in  his  Later  and  more  conser- 
vative years,  —  when  he  had  come  into  harmony,  if  not  coali- 
tion, with  his  former  accuser.  Dr.  Woods,  after  citing  some 
passages  from  his  "  Letters  to  Unitarians,"  says  (p.  180  Hist. 
Andover  Seminary),  — 

"Now  I  must  acknowledge  that  the  passages,  above  quoted 
from  my  '  Letters,'  are  manifestly  inconsistent  with  my  pro- 
fessed belief  and  my  promise  as  a  Professor.  And  on  reflec- 
tion I  cannot  but  think  it  strange,  that  the  Trustees  did  not 
exercise  the  same  watchful  fidelity  in  this  case,  as  they  did 
afterwards  in  the  cases  above  referred  to  ;  and  that  neither 
they  nor  the  Visitors  ever  admonished  me  for  doing  what 
was  plainly  at  variance  with  the  Constitution  of  tlie  Semi- 
nary." 

Upon  these  suspicions  or  charges,  as  is  apparent,  both 
Trustees  and  Visitors  declined  even  so  much  as  to  make 
inquiry. 

The  next  in  the  category  was  Dr.  Stuart,  of  whom  Dr. 
Woods  says  (Hist.  p.  152-3), — 

"After  the  lapse  of  about  twenty  years,  it  appeared  that 
on  some  points  of  speculative  divinity,  particularly  in  anthro- 
pology, there  was  not  an  entire  agreement  between  his  opin- 
ions and  those  entertained  by  Dr.  Porter  and  myself.  But 
it  was  otherwise  in  regard  to  the  great  principles  of  experi- 
mental and  practical  godliness." 

"  The  labors  of  Professor  Stuart  in  his  department  contrib- 
uted in  a  pre-eminent  degree  to  the  reputation  and  usefulness 
of  the  Seminary,  and  had  a  powerful  influence  in  promoting 
in  our  country  the  study  of  the  Scriptures  in  their  original 
languages,  and  in  settling  the  principles  of  exegesis.  In  the 
important  improvements  which  have  been  made  in  this 
branch  of  sacred  learning,  during  the  last  forty  years,  Pro- 
fessor Stuart  had  a  leading  agency. 

"  In  regard  to  the  plenary  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures,  Pro- 
fessor Stuart,  for  a  time,  dissented  somewhat  from  the  com- 
mon doctrine ;  and  he  freely  expressed  his  opinions  on  this 


239 

subject  in  the  lecture  room,  and  hinted  at  them  in  some  of 
his  publications."  » 

Next  came  Dr.  Murdock's  case  in  1824.     Page  178. 
"  A  case  occurred  nearly  twenty  years  since,  in  which  the 
Trustees,  in  the  discharge  of  the  duty  devolved  upon  them  by 
the  Founders,  appointed  a  Committee  to  inquire  into    the 
opinions  contained  in  a  publication  of  one  of  the  Professors. 
The  Committee  examined  the  publication,  and,  in  a  written 
communication  to  the  Professor,  pointed  out  various  passages 
which  seemed  to  them  inconsistent  with  the  Confession  of 
Faith  to  which  he  had  given  his  assent.     This  they  did,  not 
to  bring  against  him  the  charge  of  heresjs  but  to  ask  of  him  a 
satisfactory  explanation  of  what  he  had   published,  and  to 
impress  upon  him  the  importance  of  guarding  against  any 
deviation,  real  or  apparent,  from  the  doctrinal  standard  ap- 
pointed bv  the  Founders." 

Most  significant  was  the  result  in  this  case,  as  I  have  stated. 
Dr.  Murdock  was  required  to  answer  this  question  with  its 
preamble,  "  As  the  sermon  on  the  Atonement  which  you 
have  published  is  differeritlg  understood  by  different  persons, 
the  Trustees  would  ask  you  the  following  questions ;  viz. : 
Are  all  the  sentiments  contained  in  your  sermon,  in  your  view^ 
in  accordance  with  the  Creed  of  this  Seminary,  and  with  all 
those  sentiments  which  the  Statutes  require  its  profes^ors  to 
teach?"  Dr.  Murdock  answered  in  the  affirmative  and  then 
repeated  the  Creed.  And  so  ended  this  impeachment  of 
"heterdoxy," — and  it  so  ended  under  a  Board  of  Trustees, 
of  which  Dr.  Pearson,  Dr.  Morse,  Dr.  Dana,  Dr.  Holmes,  Dr. 
Justin  Edwards,  His  Honor  William  Phillips,  Samuel  Farrar, 
and  Judge  Samuel  Hubbard  were  members. 

In  all  the  long  and  bitter  controversy  with  Dr.  Murdock, 
two  years  later,  with  his  well-known  views,  no  charge  of 
"  heterodoxy "  or  disregard  of  the  doctrines  of  Creed  or 
Statutes  was  made,  and  Dr.  Murdock  was  removed  on  wholly 
different  grounds. 

Next  came  the  conspicuous  case  of  Prof.  Park.  —  In  his 
case,  as  in  this,  a  dissenting  Trustee,  supported  by  a  college 
President,  brought,  filed,  urged,  and  at  last  published,  in  de- 


240 

tailed  specifications,  charges  against  tlie  Professor  of  Cliristian 
Theolog3^ 

Pages  8  and  9,  Dr.  Dana's  Remonstrance,  assert, — 

"  Tlie  present  Professor  of  Christian  Tlieology  has,  agree- 
ably to  the  Constitution,  solemnly  declared  and  subscribed 
his  assent  to  the  doctrines  of  the  Westminster  Assembly's 
Shorter  Catechism,  and  solemnly  engaged  to  teach  them,  to 
the  exclusion  of  all  opposing  doctrines  and  errors.  That 
Catechism  recognizes  the  doctrine  of  original  sin.  Is  it 
consistent  in  the  Professor  to  hold  and  teach  that  our  nature 
is  not  sinful,  and  that  original  sin  is  not  sin  ?  What  though 
it  be  admitted,  in  the  case  of  infants,  that  they  need  atone- 
ment and  regeneration,  in  order  to  enter  heaven  ?  Are  not 
atonement  and  regeneration,  where  there  is  no  sin,  obviously 
supernumerary  and  absurd? 

"The  Catechism  recognizes  a  Regeneration,  involving 
a  real  renovation  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  a  restoration  of 
the  divine  image.  Is  it  consistent  to  hold  and  teach  that 
Regeneration  consists  in  a  change  in  the  balance  of  the 
susceptibilities;  or  in  a  change  from  sinful  action  to  holy 
action  ;  or  even  in  a  change  from  a  nature  [not  sinful]  in- 
clining to  sinful  acts,  to  a  nature  [not  holy]  inclining  to 
holy  acts? 

"  The  Catechism  brings  distinctly  to  view  a  Covenant  made 
by  God  with  Adam,  the  father  of  the  race  ;  a  covenant  in- 
cluding all  his  posterity.  This  doctrine  has  ever  been  viewed 
by  the  greatest  divines,  as  a  kind  of  corner-stone  in  theology  ; 
absolutely  essential  to  explain  many  things  in  the  gospel  sys- 
tem, which  otherwise  would  remain  forever  dark  and  inex- 
plicable. It  is  therefore  perfectly  natural  that  the  avowed 
enemies  of  religion  should  assail  it,  as  they  have  actually  done, 
with  inveterate  hostility,  and  with  blasphemous  ridicule.  But 
can  it  be  consistent,  in  a  Professor  who  has  taken  the  Cate- 
chism as  his  Creed,  to  explode  the  doctrine,  by  teaching  that 
there  is  no  evidence  of  any  covenant  of  works  between  God 
and  Adam,  as  the  father  of  the  race  ;  or  with  Adam,  includ- 
ing his  posterity  ? 

"  The  Catechism  declares  an  Atonement,  such  as  involves 


241 

3b-  full  satisfaction  made  by  the  Redeemer  to  the  offended  law 
and  justice  of  God.  It  speaks  of  Christ  as  "  undergoing  the 
wrath  of  God  "  (meaning,  the  manifestations  of  his  wrath), 
*'  and  the  cursed  death  of  the  cross."  With  what  consistency 
can  a  Professor,  who  has  declared  his  adhesion  to  the  Cate- 
chism, maintain  that  it  cannot  be  said  that  Christ's  passive 
obedience  frees  us  from  punishment ;  and  that  in  the  case 
of  the  penitent,  the  demands  of  the  law  are  evaded,  or 
waived  ? 

"  In  fine ;  the  Catechism  declares  most  explicitly,  that  we 
are  justified  by  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  imputed  to  us, 
and  received  by  faith.  Where,  then,  is  the  consistency  of 
maintaining  that  Christ  needed  obedience  for  himself,  and 
could  not  perform  a  work  of  supererogation  for  others ;  that 
if  Ciirist  obeyed  the  law  for  us,  we  need  not  obey  it  for  our- 
selves, for  that  the  law  does  not  require  two  obediences ; 
neither  in  this  case,  is  there  any  grace  in  our  pardon ;  that 
Christ's  obedience  being  imputed  to  us,  involves  a  double 
absurdity." 

"  These  are  only  specimens  of  the  doctrines  now  taught  in 
the  Seminary.  But  they  are  specimens  which  comprehend 
the  whole  range  both  of  doctrinal  theology,  and  experimental 
religion.  The  doctrines  are  at  irreconcilable  war  with  the 
genuine  doctrines  of  the  gospel." 

On  page  10,  he  says  :  — 

"  I  remark  here,  that  there  are  many  mistaken  views  of  the 
Professor,  which  have  come  to  my  knowledge,  which  I  have 
not  specified.  Such  are  the  following :  that  there  was  a 
period  when  Christ  began  to  be  the  Son  of  God  —  that  if  he 
was  a  man,  and  if  he  was  a  holy  man,  he  must  have  had  ability 
to  sin  —  that  temporal  death  makes  no  part  of  the  penalt}^  of 
the  law,  nor  is  it,  properly  speaking,  the  punishment  of  sin  — 
that  it  is  in  the  power  of  human  beings  to  hinder  the  execu- 
tion of  some  parts  of  the  divine  decrees.  Assertions  such  as 
these,  I  must  declare  — begging  the  Professor's  pardon  — are 
very  reckless,  and  very  dangerous." 

These  charges  were  supported  by  Dr.  Lord,  and  by  an 
anonymous  laj^man,  and  answered  by  the  late    Dr.  George 


242 

Allen  in  a  pamphlet  entitled  "  The  Andover  Fuss,  or  Dr. 
Woods  vs.  Dr.  Dana  on  the  Imputation  of  Heresy  against 
Prof.  Park  respecting  the  doctrine  of  Original  Sin." 

The  Visitors,  after  examination  of  Prof.  Park,  utterly 
overruled  Dr.  Dana's  protest  against  his  appointment,  and 
confirmed  him ;  and  the  Trustees  and  Visitors  entirely  over- 
ruled or  disregarded  all  Dr.  Dana's  subsequent  charges. 

Dr.  Dana  tells  us  that  for  forty-five  years  he  had  been  a 
Trustee,  —  "With  the  venerable  Founders  of  the  Seminary 
I  was  intimately  acquainted  ;  I  knew  their  favorite  objects 
and  designs;  I  have  carefully  pondered  their  Constitution 
and  Statutes,  and  I  have  watched  with  deep  solicitude,  the 
course  of  things  in  the  Institution  from  its  past  inception  to 
the  present  time." 

Remonstrance,  p.  5. 

And  he  closes  his  Remonstrance  thus  :  "  But  I  have  done. 
Should  what  I  have  written  be  successful,  under  the  blessing 
of  God,  to  promote  true  and  pure  religion;  to  send  a  salutary 
alarm  to  the  churches;  to  check  the  j)rogress  of  fatal  error ; 
to  induce  Christians  to  grasp  with  new  ardor  the  holy  and 
saving  doctrines  of  the  Bible,  and  to  contend  earyiestly  for  the 
faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints,  my  object  will  have  been 
attained,  and  I  shall  regard  myself  as  the  most  favored  of 
men." 

And  yet  so  variant  was  the  action  of  the  Trustees,  under 
the  liberal  construction  of  the  Court,  from  his  ironclad  no- 
tions, that  he  says  he  has  been  "  painfully  constrained  to  say 
their  course,  for  some  years,  has  been  to  him  most  mysteri- 
ous, and  inexplicable." 

Remonstrance,  p.  4. 

And  elsewhe  -e  he  says,  "  My  Brethren  will  permit  me  to 
say,  that  would  we  guard  the  Seminary  from  its  dangers,  and 
disencumber  it  of  its  evils,  we  must  adopt  a  new  system  re- 
specting creeds." — And  the  ^'■new  systein'"  was  required, 
because  the  Trustees  refused  to  take  cognizance  of  what  he 


243 

declares  to  be  "deviations"  "certainly  essential,"  "for  they 
are  not  only  erroneous  explanations  of  doctrines  previously 
assented  to,  but  contradictions  and  denials.  Witness  the 
cardinal  doctrines  of  original  sin,  of  justification,  and  of  the 
Covenant  with  Adam^ 

Remonstrance,  p.  13. 

It  was  a  "  new  system  respecting  creeds "  that  Dr.  Dana 
asked  in  his  day,  and  it  is  a  new  system  respecting  Creeds, 
bis  successors  ask  to-day.  They  befriend  new  departures  in 
law,  if  not  in  Theology. 

Prof.  Park,  The  Associate  Creed,  p.  86,  after  stating, 
among  other  things,  that  except  Dr.  Dana,  not  one  of  the 
Trustees  or  Visitors  "  ever  intimated  to  me  that  he  doubted 
my  strict  allegiance  to  the  creed "  says  "  I  thought  that  I 
accepted  the  Creed  in  all  its  details,  as  well  as  in  its  substance. 
I  now  think  that  I  have  taught  all  its  doctrines  in  the  sense 
intended  by  its  chief  framers." 

Nobody  will  doubt  the  sincerity  and  truth  of  these  declara- 
tions. And  I  cite  them  in  connection  with  Dr.  Dana  and  Dr. 
Lord,  only  as  confirmatory  of  how  much,  under  just  and 
proper  construction,  the  Statutes  and  Creed  take  in  and  CDm- 
prehend. 

We  come  now  to  the  last  adjudication  of  Trustees  and 
Visitors,  under  the  Statutes  and  this  Creed.  And  this 
touches  again  the  Abbot  Professorship. 

On  July  2,  1882,  the  Trustees  elected  Rev.  Dr.  Newman 
Smyth  Abbot  Professor  of  Christian  Theology,  to  succeed 
Dr.  Park.  I  suppose  of  all  the  "  heterodoxies,"  and  incon- 
sistent holdings  and  beliefs,  charged  upon  the  Respondent, 
the  one  most  relied  upon  is  that  contained  in  the  llth  speci- 
fication in  these  words.  "That  there  is  and  will  be,  proba- 
tion after  death  for  all  men,  who  do  not  decisively  reject 
Christ  during  the  earthly  life,"  etc. 

Perhaps  no  name  in  this  country  is  more  closely  connected 
with  the  possible  hypothesis  covered  by  this  charge,  than 
that  of  Newman  Smyth.     When  he  was  elected,  his  writings 


244 

were  before  the  Trustees,  and  in  their  deliberate  judgment 
there  was  nothing  in  them,  which  should  prevent  the  election 
of  their  author  to  his  professorship. 

The  election  came  to  the  Visitors  for  confirmation,  and  had 
their  most  deliberate  and  careful  consideration  and  judgment. 

Let  me  read  from  this  judgment  —  "  The  Board  of  Visitors 
of  the  Theological  Institution  at  Andover,  having  been  duly 
notified  by  the  Trustees  of  the  election  of  Rev.  Newman 
Smj'th  as  Abbot  Professor  of  Theology,  and  having  had,  after 
lepeated  consideration  by  themselves  of  his  election,  a  frank 
and  full  conference  with  the  Professor  elect  at  which  a  majority 
of  the  Board  of  Trustees  were  also  present,  have  adopted  the 
following  minute  which  they  hereby  lay  before  the  Trustees. 

"  The  Visitors  have  been  convinced  of  the  general  harmony 
of  Dr.  Smyth's  theological  views  Avith  those  which  have  been 
identified  with  the  history  of  the  Andover  Seminary  from 
the  beginning.  He  frankly  and  heartily  accepts  the  creed  to 
which  the  Abbot  Professor  must  subscribe,  and  affirms  that 
he  is  surprised  to  find  after  a  careful  study  of  this  creed  that 
it  is  in  such  accord  with  his  own  views. 

"  Some  of  the  publislied  works  of  Dr.  Smyth  have  by  many 
careful  thinkers  and  earnest  friends  of  the  Seminary  been 
intei'preted  as  sanctioning  views  contrary  to  the  doctrines 
commonly  held  by  our  churches  and  clearly  declared  in  our 
articles  of  faith.  These  views  especially  relate  to  sin,  the 
atonement  and  the  future  state.  A  teacher  who  should 
countenance,  however  unwittingly,  a  departure  from  the 
received  faith  on  these  points  would  evidently  not  be  well 
fitted  for  the  office  of  instructing  young  men  in  the  truths 
of  the  Gospel.  We  have  therefore  carefully  examined  Dr. 
Smyth  upon  these,  and  also  upon  his  general  doctrinal  opin- 
ions, and  he  with  admirable  frankness  and  with  a  sincerity 
which  cannot  be  doubted  has  made  it  evident  that  however 
he  may  have  been  interpreted,  his  real  views  upon  these 
themes  are  in  substantial  agreement  with  the  characteristic 
doctrinal  position  of  this  Seminary." 

Minute  of  Visitors. 


245 

To  this  minute,  the  Trustees  by  their  Committee  replied, 
March  23,  1882,  from  which  reply  I  make  the  following 
extract. 

"  The  Trustees  of  Phillips  Academy  have  received  your 
communication  with  regard  to  the  election  of  the  Rev.  New- 
man Smyth,  D.D.,  as  Abbot  Professor  in  the  Theological 
Seminary  which  is  in  their  care,  and  whose  interests  are,  in 
part,  committed  to  you.  They  have  appointed  us  a  Com- 
mittee to  present  to  you  their  reply.  The  Trustees  wish  to 
express  their  appreciation  of  the  pains  taken  by  the  Visitors 
to  reach  an  intelligent  and  trustworthy  judgment  upon  the 
serious  matter  in  which  their  concurrent  action  has  been 
sought.  They  desire,  also,  to  express  their  gratification  that 
3'ou  concur  in  their  judgment  regarding  the  Theological 
belief  of  Dr.  Smyth,  and  in  their  estimate  of  his  character 
and  ability. 

"  They  are  glad  that  the  result  of  your  deliberation  and 
investigation  is  the  conviction  that  the  views  of  Dr.  Smyth 
are  in  substantial  agreement  ^ith  the  doctrines  taught  in  the 
Seminary  in  the  past,  and  in  harmony  with  the  creed  to  which 
the  Abbot  Professor  is  required  to  give  his  assent." 

Trustees'  Reply  to  Minute. 

The  Trustees  conclude  by  renewing  their  request  for  the 
confirmation  of  Dr.  Smyth. 

The  Visitors  thereupon  re-considered  their  action,  and,  by 
a  majority  of  their  number,  refused  to  confirm  his  election. 
In  the  Minute  then  adopted  the  Board  of  Visitors  say :  — 
"  The  Board  of  Visitors  would  again  express  their  conviction 
that  the  theological  vie\Vs  of  Dr.  Newman  Smyth  are  in  gen- 
eral harmony  with  those  which  have  been  identified  with  the 
history  of  the  Andover  Seminary  from  the  beginning.  After 
his  full  and  explicit  acceptance  of  the  creed,  and  his  frank 
additional  statements  in  response  to  our  inquiries,  it  is  im- 
possible for  us  to  doubt  his  substantial  agreement  with  the 
doctrinal  position  characteristic  of  this  Institution.  His 
natural  frankness,  his  moral  earnestness,  and  his  Christian 


246 

sincerity  are  too  evident  to  permit  us  after  our  conference 
with  him  to  raise  any  question  upon  this  point." 

Visitors'  Records. 

Thus  from  1807  to  1887,  the  construction  and  interpreta- 
tion of  these  Statutes  and  Creed  have  been  uniform,  by 
Court,  Visitors  and  Trustees.  —  Insinuations,  suspicions, 
charges  of  heresy  and  "  heterodoxy  "  to  the  Creed  have  run 
down  the  line  of  Seminary  Administration,  from  the  day  a 
dissenting  Trustee  first  raised  them  against  a  Founder's  pro- 
fessor, to  that  in  which  his  successor  raises  them  against 
nearly  the  whole  Faculty  of  the  Institution,  and  all  his  asso- 
ciate Trustees.  No  "  heterodoxy  "  has  ever  been  eliminated, 
and  until  to-day  no  public  prosecution  has  been  entertained. 
Yet,  in  the  administration  of  the  Seminary,  have  been  united, 
generation  after  generation,  some  of  the  most  intelligent, 
conscientious,  learned,  orthodox  men,  clerical  and  lay,  which 
this  Commonwealth  has  produced. 

For  eighty  years  these  Statutes  and  Creed  have,  without 
deviation,  been  construed  in  the  manner  I  have  stated :  — 
strictly  and  firmly,  in  every  necessity  to  security;  broadly, 
tolerantly,  and  liberally,  in  every  essential  to  that  intellectual, 
and  spiritual  freedom  and  progress,  without  whose  conserving 
influences,  creeds  fall  from  living  organisms,  to  fossils. 

These  liberal  rules  and  principles  of  construction,  so  well 
established  in  relation  to  these  identical  Statutes,  by  Court, 
Trustees,  and  Visitors,  are  precisely  those  everywhere  recog- 
nized by  all  Tribunals,  civil  or  ecclesiastical. 

They  are  clearly  and  distinctly  announced  by  the  English 
Courts  in  numerous  cases,  to  only  one  of  which  I  need  refer, 
the  great  case  of  Voysey  vs.  Noble,  decided  in  the  Privy 
Council  in  1871. 

3  Privy  Council  Rep.  357. 

The  court  say  :  — 

''  Before  examining  the  charges  and  comparing  the  proofs 
adduced   from    Mr.  Voysey's  publications  with  the  charges 


247 

founded  thereon,  and  with  the  Articles  and  Formularies  of 
the  Church  alleged  to  have  been  contravened,  it  will  be  well 
to  enunciate,  briefly,  tlie  rules  of  judicial  exposition  with 
reference  to  the  Articles  and  Formularies  of  the  Church. 

"In  this  respect  we  have  the  guidance  of  previous  and 
recent  decisions  of  this  Tribunal,  expressed  in  clear  and 
definite  language. 

"  In  the  cases  arising  on  the  work  called  '  Essays  and 
Reviews^''  Williams  vs.  BisJioj)  of  Salisbury^  and  Wilson  vs. 
Fe7idalU  Lord  Westbury,  in  delivering  the  opinion  of  the 
Committee,  said:  'Our  province  is,  on  the  one  hand,  to 
ascertain  the  true  construction  of  those  Articles  of  Religion 
and  Formularies  referred  to  in  each  charge  according  to  the 
legal  rules  for  the  interpretation  of  Statutes  and  written 
instruments;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  to  ascertain  the  i:)laiu 
grammatical  meaning  of  the  passages  which  are  charged  as 
being  contrar}^  to  or  inconsistent  with  the  doctrine  of  the 
Church  ascertained  in  the  manner  we  have  described.' 

"  Hut  it  is  to  be  observed,  that  in  inquiries  of  the  nature 
now  before  us,  tliis  Cojumittee  is  not  compelled,  as  in  cases 
affecting  the  riglit  of  pro^jcrt}',  to  affix  a  definite  meaning  to 
any  given  Article  of  Religion  the  construction  of  which  is 
fairly  open  to  doubt,  even  should  the  Committee  itself  be  of 
opinion  (on  argument)  that  a  particular  construction  was 
supported  by  the  greater  weight  of  reasoning.  Thus,  Lord 
StoivelU  in  the  case  of  Her  Majesty's  Procurator  vs.  Stone^ 
thus  expressed  himself :  'I  think  myself  bound  at  the  same 
time  to  declare  that  it  is  not  the  duty  nor  inclination  of  tliis 
Court  to  be  minute  and  rigid  in  applying  proceedings  of  this 
nature,  and  that  if  any  Article  is  really  a  subject  of  dubious 
interpretation  it  would  be  highlj-  improper  that  this  Court 
should  fix  on  one  meaning,  and  prosecute  all  those  who  hold 
a  contrary  opinion  regarding  its  interpretation.  It  is  a  very 
different  thing  where  the  authority  of  the  Articles  is  totally 
eluded,  and  the  party  deliberately  declares  the  intention  of 
teaching  doctrines  contrarj-  to  them.' 

*'  We  have  thought  it  right  to  refer  to  the  canons  of  con- 
struction thus  judicially  expressed,  because  on  the  one  hand 


248 

they  allow  to  the  party  accused  a  fair  and  reasonable  latitude 
of  opinion  with  reference  to  his  conformity  to  the  Articles 
and  Formularies  of  the  Church,  and  on  the  other  they  aiford 
no  sanction  whatever  to  the  contention  of  Mr.  Voyi<ey,  that 
unless  there  be  found  in  the  publication  complained  of  a  con- 
tradiction, totidem  verbis^  of  some  passage  in  the  Articles,  he 
is  at  liberty  to  hold,  or  rather  to  publish,  opinions  repugnant 
to  or  inconsistent  with  their  clear  construction. 

"As  regards  those  Articles  of  Religion  as  to  the  construc- 
tion of  which  a  reasonable  doubt  exists,  the  question  may 
arise  how  far  opinions  of  a  similar  character  to  those  charged 
to  be  heretical,  have  been  held  by  eminent  Divines  without 
challenge  or  molestation,  because  the  proof  of  their  having 
been  so  held  may  tend  to  show  the  bona  fides  of  the  doubt. 
In  this  respect  also  we  have  ample  guidance  from  authority  ; 
and  it  will  be  found  that  where  the  Article  in  question  is 
subject  to  reasonable  doubt,  and  eminent  Divines  have  held 
opinions  similar  to  those  impugned  in  the  case  before  the 
Court,  that  circumstance  alone  has  been  held  to  be  of  great 
weight  in  induciuo'  the  Court  to  allow  a  similar  latitude  of 
construction  to  the  party  accused,  without  itself  deciding 
upon  the  construction  of  the  Articles. 

"  Thus,  in  the  case  of  Williams  vs.  The  Bishop  of  Salisbury 
the  judgment  of  the  Judicial  Committee  contains  this  pas- 
sage :  — 

" '  It  is  obvious  that  there  may  be  matters  of  doctrine  in 
which  the  Church  has  not  given  any  definite  rule  or  standard 
of  faith  or  opinion  ;  there  may  be  matters  of  religious  belief 
on  which  the  requisition  of  the  Church  may  be  less  than  the 
Scripture  may  seem  to  warrant ;  there  may  be  very  many 
matters  of  religious  speculation  and  inquiry  on  which  the 
Church  may  have  refrained  from  pronouncing  any  opinion  at 
all.  On  matters  on  which  the  Church  has  prescribed  no  rule, 
there  is  so  far  freedom  of  opinion  that  they  may  be  discussed 
without  penal  consequences.  Nor  in  a  proceeding  like  the 
present  are  we  at  liberty  to  ascribe  to  the  ('hurch  any  rule  or 
teaching  which  we  do  not  find  expressly  and  distinctly  stated, 
or  which  is  not  plainly  involved  in  or  to  be  collected  from  that 
which  is  written  '  (pp.  385-7). 


249 

"111  considering  these  first  three  charges,  as  in  the  consider- 
ation of  thofcc  that  follow,  we  have  been  most  anxious  to  ar- 
rive at  a  fair  construction  of  Mr.  Vo^sei/'s  writings,  not  only 
by  examining  the  context  which  he  has  referred  to  as  bear- 
ing on  the  passages  cited,  but  also  by  attentively  considering 
whether  any  previous  writer,  himself  in  Holy  Orders,  has 
been  allowed,  with  impunity,  to  assert  opinions  similar  to 
those  of  Mr.  Vwysey^  so  as  to  afford  reasonable  ground  for 
holding  that  Mr.  Voysey  has  merely  availed  himself  of  the 
privilege  of  adopting  a  possible  interpretation  of  the  lan- 
guage of  the  Articles,  although  it  may  appear  to  us  that  such 
interpretation  is  not  sound  or  correct.  But  we  can  find  noth- 
ing of  the  kind"  (p.  391). 

"  We  have  fulfilled  the  duty  of  examining  minutely  the  Ar- 
ticles of  charge  exhibited  against  the  Appellant.  We  have 
not  been  unmindful  of  the  latitude  wisely  allowed  by  the 
Articles  of  Religion  to  the  Clergy,  so  as  to  embrace  all  who 
hold  one  common  faith.  The  mysterious  nature  of  many  of 
the  subjects  associated  with  the  cardinal  points  of  this  faith 
must,  of  necessity,  occasion  great  diversity  of  opinion,  and  it 
has  not  been  attempted  by  the  Articles  to  close  all  discussion, 
or  to  guard  against  varied  interpretations  of  Scripture  with 
reference  even  to  cardinal  Articles  of  Faith,  so  that  these 
Articles  are  themselves  plainly  admitted,  in  some  sense  or 
other,  according  to  a  reasonable  construction,  or  according 
even  to  a  doubtful,  but  not  delusive,  construction.  Neither 
have  we  omitted  to  notice  the  previous  decisions  of  the  Eccle- 
siastical Courts,  and  especially  the  judgments  of  this  Tribunal, 
by  which  interpretations  of  the  Articles  of  Religion,  which 
by  any  reasonable  allowance  for  the  variety  of  human  opinion 
can  be  reconciled  with  their  language,  have  been  held  to  be 
consistent  with  a  due  obedience  to  the  Laws  Ecclesiastical, 
even  though  the  interpretation  in  question  miglit  not  be 
that  which  the  Tribunal  itself  would  have  assigned  to  the 
Article"  (pp.  404-5). 

These  rules  are  equally  recognized  by  the  authorities  of 
the  Presbyterian  Church  in  this  and  other  countries,  as  the 
just  terms  of  credal  subscription. 


250 

"  The  great  dividing  question  is,  how  is  the  subscription  or 
assent  to  our  standards  to  be  interpreted  ?  Or,  with  what 
degree  of  strictness  is  the  phrase  '  system  of  doctrines,'  as  it 
occurs  in  the  ordination  service, to  be  explained  ?  On  this  sub- 
ject, which  is  one  of  vital  importance,  there  are,  if  we  do  not 
mistake,  two  extremes  equally  to  be  lamented.  On  the  one 
hand,  there  are  some,  who  seem  inclined  to  give  the  phrase  in 
question,  such  a  latitude  that  any  one,  who  holds  the  great 
fundamental  doctrines  of  the  Gospel,  as  they  are  recognized 
by  all  evangelical  denominations,  might  adopt  it ;  while  on 
tlie  other,  some  are  disposed  to  interpret  it  so  strictly  as  to 
make  it  not  only  involve  the  adoption  of  all  the  doctrines 
contained  in  the  Confession,  but  to  preclude  all  diversity  in 
the  manner  of  conceiving  and  explaining  them.  They  aie 
therefore  disposed  to  regard  those,  who  do  not  in  this  sense 
adopt  the  Confession  of  Faith  and  yet  remain  in  the  Church, 
as  guilty  of  a  great  departure  from  moial  honesty.  This  we 
think  an  extreme,  and  a  mischievous  one.  Because  it  tends 
to  the  impeachment  of  the  character  of  many  upright  men, 
and  because  its  application  would  split  the  Church  into  in- 
numerable fragments.  These  are  among  its  most  prominent 
evil  tendencies.  That  it  is  an  extreme,  we  think  obvious, 
from  the  following  considerations.  It  is  making  the  terms  of 
subscription  imply  more  than  they  literally  import.  Two 
men  may,  with  equal  sincerity,  profess  to  believe  a  doctrine, 
or  system  of  doctrines,  and  differ  in  their  mode  of  under- 
standing and  explaining  them.  2.  Such  a  degree  of  uni- 
formity never  was  exacted,  and  never  has  existed.  The 
Confession,  as  framed  by  the  Westminster  Divines,  was  an 
acknowledged  con^iromise  between  different  classes  of  theo- 
logians. When  adopted  by  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  this 
country,  it  was  with  the  distinct  understanding  that  the  mode 
of  subscription  did  not  imply  strict  uniformity  of  views. 
And  from  that  time  to  this,  there  has  been  an  open  and 
avowed  diversity  of  opinion  on  many  points,  among  those 
who  adopted  the  Confession  of  Faith,  without  leading  to  the 
suspicion  of  insincerity  or  dishonesty.  3.  It  is  clearly  impos- 
sible, that  any  considerable  number  of  men  can  be  brought 


251 

to  conform  so  exactly  in  their  views,  as  to  be  able  to  adopt 
such  an  extended  formula  of  doctrine  precisely  in  the  same 


sense." 


3  Princeton  Rev.  1831,  p.  520-521. 


"  That  this  is  the  true  interpretation  is  evident,  1.  From 
the  signification  of  the  words  as  established  by  usage,  which 
cannot  be  arbitrarily  altered      The  'system  of  doctrine  '  con- 
tained in  the   Kacovian  Catechism  is  the   Socinian  system, 
and  he  who  adopts  that  catechism  before  God  and  man  pro- 
fesses himself  to  be  a  Socinian.     The  '  svstem  of  doctrine ' 
contained  in  the  '  Form  of  Concord  '  is  the  Lutheran  system  ; 
that  contained  in  the  Apology  for  the  Remonstrance  is  the 
Arminian  S3'stem  ;  and  by  parity  of  reasoning  the  system  of 
doctrine  contained  in  the  Westminster  Confession  is  the  Cal- 
vinistic  system.     No  man  therefore  can  honestly  adopt  that 
confession  who  is  not  a  Calvinist ;  and  no  man  can  honestly 
profess  to  be  a  Calvinist  who  does  not  adopt  all  the  '  essential 
and  necessary  articles '  of  Calvinism,  as  a  known  and  histori- 
cal form  of  faith.     More  than  this  the  words  do  not  signify. 
More  than  this  no  church  court  has  the  right  to  demand. 
And  less  than  this  no  such  court  is  authorized  to  accept. 
2.  This  has  been  the  interpretation  put  upon  the  formula  in 
question  from  the  beginning.     No  man  has  ever  been  sub- 
jected to  discipline  in  our  church  for  the  denial  of  anything 
in  our  standards,  which  did  not  include  the  rejection  either 
of  some  doctrine  held  in  common  by  Calvinists  and  all  other 
evangelical  churches,  (such  as  the  doctrines  of  the  Trinity, 
Incarnation,  etc.,  etc.),  or  of  some  article  of  faith  regarded 
as  essential  to  the  integrity  of  the  Calvinistic  system.     3.  To 
demand  more  than  this  would  be  destructive  to  the  unity  of 
the  church.    There  never  was  a  period  in  our  historj^  in  which 
all  our  ministers  agreed  in  adopting  every  proposition  con- 
tained in  the   Confession   and  Catechisms.     It  is   notorious 
that  such  agreement  does  not  now  exist.     On  the  other  hand, 
to  demand  less  than  the  adoption  of  the  Calvinistic  system 
in  its  integrity,  would  destroy  the  purity  and  harmony  of  the 

church." 

37  Princeton  Rev.  p.  303-304. 


Under  the  Vatican,  in  the  infallible  Roman  Catholic 
Church,  they  are  recognized  rules  and  principles  of  construc- 
tion and  interpretation. 

"  Religious  orders  are  not  religious  sects,  having  creeds  of 
their  own.  The  Dominican  does  not  differ  from  the  Augus- 
tinian,  and  both  from  the  Jesuit,  in  the  same  way  as  Bap- 
tists, for  instance,  differ  from  Methodists,  or  Methodists  from 
Episcopalians.  Non-Catholic  denominations  disagree  as  to 
their  belief,  while  Jesuits,  Augustinians,  and  Dominicans 
have  the  same  faith,  and  are  united  in  the  same  judgment, 
as  all  other  members  of  the  Catholic  Church.  The  variety 
of  religious  orders  arises  from  the  special  way  in  which  each 
practises  the  Evangelical  counsels,  in  accordance  with  the 
special  end  for  which  it  was  established  and  sanctioned  by 
the  Church.  The  questions  that  gave  rise  to  their  different 
schools  are  those  outside  of  the  creed,  or  which  the  Church 
has  not  settled  by  any  decision.  So  long  as  the  Church  does 
not  speak,  each  may  adhere  to  his  own  opinion,  provided  he 
be  ready  to  submit  his  judgment  to  that  of  the  Church,  when 
in  her  authority  she  does  speak.  The  controversy  may 
sometimes  seem  to  bear  upon  matters  already  defined  ;  it  is 
not,  however,  to  disprove  them,  but  to  unfold  them  from  a 
scientific  point  of  view.  In  this  doctors  may  disagree  ;  the 
theory  advanced  by  one  may  be  in  opposition  with  another's 
theory,  and  these  again  may  widely  differ  from  a  third  and 
fourth,  proposed  by  other  theologians  ;  nor  can  it  be  other- 
wise ;  but  as  all  of  them  leave  the  Catholic  dogma  un- 
touched, their  theorizing,  without  becoming  a  part  of 
Catholic  teaching,  is  left  unchecked." 

Prof.  Russo,  True  Religion,  99. 

"  As  this  answer  might  seem  to  have  been  invented  for  the 
purpose  of  shielding  ourselves  against  the  attacks  of  the 
reformers,  it  is  not  out  of  place  to  remark  that  the  doctrine 
thus  laid  down  was  not  unknown  fifteen  centuries  ago. 
'  What  ?  '  says  Vincent  of  Lerins,  '  is  there  no  progress  in 
the  Church  of  Christ?     There   is  progress  in  it,  and  very 


253 

great  progress,  but  it  is  indeed  progress  and  not  change^  — 
vere  progressus  sit  ille  fidei,  non  permutatio,  —  for  by  progress 
a  thing  increases,  remaining  still  itself;  whereas  by  change 
it  is  transformed  into  something  else.'  And,  after  having 
shown  how  the  human  body  passes  through  all  the  phases  of 
its  development,  while  still  retaining  its  identity,  '  even  so,' 
he  continues,  '  must  the  Christian  dogma,  following  the  law 
of  a  similar  progress,  strengthen  with  years,  increase  with 
time,  rise  with  age,  yet  still  incorruptible  and  unalterable  in 
its  integrity.'  " 

Prof.  Russo,  True  Religion,  103. 

"  Ever  immutable,  ever  substantially  the  same,  Catholic 
dogma,  according  as  it  advances  in  time,  dilates  its  deep 
bosom,  and  discovers  more  and  more  that  treasure  which  has 
its  source  in  the  Infinite.  Now  it  dispels  the  lingering 
shadows  of  the  past  from  a  truth  which  is  to  illumine  the 
future.  Now  it  begets,  at  the  appointed  time,  the  conclu- 
sions which  spring  from  its  eternally  fruitful  principles, 
according  as  the  assaults  of  error  urge  it  on  to  the  develop- 
ment of  those  divine  seeds.  Thus  dogma  goes  on  increasing 
without,  brightening  with  all  the  truths  which  God  raises 
over  his  Church,  growing  larger  and  clearer  in  the  minds  of 
men,  but  never  changing,  never  transformed." 

Prof.  Russo,  True  Religion,  105. 

I  cite  this  work  because  it  has  been  commended  to  me  by 
high  Church  authority,  as  accurate  and  reliable. 

These  principles  are  impliedly  and  necessarily  recognized 
in  the  Statutes  themselves. 

The  Founders  built  their  Institution,  not  merely  for  their 
own,  but  for  all  time.  They  protected  it  with  a  creed,  com- 
promised originally,  but  to  be,  not  an  anchor  holding  for- 
ever, those  administering  the  Institution  to  "  a  phase  of 
orthodoxy  in  the  past,"  but  ever  and  alwa^'s  to  each  of  them 
a  living,  personal,  present  faith. 

Over  all  the}'  put  a  Board  of  Visitors,  who  bavijig  them- 


254 

selves  first  subscribed  this  creed,  should  construe  and  inter- 
pret it  in  all  cases,  brought  judicially  before  them. 

That  such  construction  might  be  guarded  from  theological 
bias,  they  put  two  clergymen  and  one  layman  on  this  Board. 

That  it  might  not  suffer  by  the  impetuous  ardor  of  youth, 
nor  the  freezing  conservatism  of  age,  they  provided  that  no 
one  should  be  eligible  as  a  Visitor  till  forty  years  of  age, 
and  that  no  one  should  remain  on  the  Board  after  seventy 
years  of  age.  The  Board  was  to  be  one  of  acting,  living 
men,  identified  with  the  present,  not  with  the  past. 

That  they  might  be  guarded  against  all  inadvertence,  they 
are  required  to  read  the  whole  associate  Statutes  at  each 
annual  meeting  of  the  Board,  and  to  renew  their  creed  sub- 
scription every  five  years.  So  constituted  they  were  to  be 
as  in  the  Founders  "  place  and  stead,"  "the  Guardians,  Over- 
seers, and  Protectors  of  the  Foundation  forever,"  subject 
only  to  the  Supreme  Visitors,  "  to  determine,  interpret,  and 
explain  the  Statutes  of  this  Foundation,"  "  and  in  general 
to  see  that  our  true  intentions,  as  expressed  in  these,  our 
Statutes,  be  faithfully  executed ;  always  administerting  jus- 
tice impartiall}^  and  exercising  the  functions  of  their  office 
in  the  fear  of  God,  according  to  the  said  Statutes,  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  Seminary,  and  the  Law  of  the  Land." 

The  creation  of  so  complicated  an  original  and  appellate 
jurisdiction  "  to  determine,  interpret,  and  explain  the  Stat- 
utes of  the  Foundation  "  clearly  indicates  that  the  Founders 
supposed  questions  upon  their  construction  would  arise  in 
the  progress  of  the  administration  of  the  Seminary.  —  While 
their  ultimate  Visitors,  the  Supreme  Court,  on  a  question 
raised  on  the  construction  of  these  very  Statutes,  had  unmis- 
takably told  them  the  principles  which  the  "  Laws  of  the 
Land  "  would  apply. 

It  only  remains  to  ask  if  anything  has  been  shown  to  have 
been  done  or  held  by  this  Professor  which  makes  him,  in 
subscribing  this  creed,  guilty  of  evasion,  untruth,  and  dis- 
honesty. Modify  as  you  please,  generalize  as  you  may,  soften 
all  you  can,  in  plain  common  words  the  charge  comes  to  this. 
if  you  find  him  guilty,  I  pray  you  as  an  act  of  justice,  put 


255 

your  finger  on  the  act,  or  opinion  condemned,  that  at  last  we 
may  know  what  our  crime  is. 

Burke  said  he  could  not  indict  a  whole  people,  but  these 
complainants,  with  more  felicity,  have  practically  embraced 
in  their  charges,  a  whole  Faculty,  all  but  one  of  a  Board  of 
Trustees,  and  a  majority  of  the  great  denomination  of  which 
Andover  is  the  cherished  Institution,  and  you  the  honored 
representatives.  —  Under  these  charges  the  personal  conse- 
quences of  this  trial  are  of  great  significance.  But  its  public 
import  is  vastly  more  significant.  You  may  indeed  try  to 
anchor  this  institution,  and  the  denomination  which  sustains 
it,  to  "  a  particular  phase  of  orthodoxy  in  the  past,"  but  I 
have  so  little  confidence  in  the  anchorage  that  I  shall  be  only 
too  glad,  if  you  do  not  strand  and  shipwreck  both  in  the  haz- 
ardous attempt.  I  know  you  appreciate  the  magnitude  and 
importance  of  your  decision.  I  fervently  pray  it  may  be 
"according  to  the  best  light  God  shall  give  you." 


EX-GOV.    GASTON'S   ARGUMENT. 


3Iay  it  please  your  Reverend  and  Honorable  Body  : 

My  words  will  be  few,  my  speech  will  be  brief;  for  I 
think  that  after  Dr.  Egbert  C.  Smyth  appeared  before  you 
in  the  full  proportions  of  a  noble  and  Christian  manhood, 
and  made  his  defence,  the  day  of  his  trial  was  over.  Then 
what  need  of  further  speech  from  me  or  from  anyone?  I 
should  feel  that  I  should  trespass  upon  your  time  if  I  should 
undertake  to  reiterate  in  feebler  form  and  phrase  the  words 
wh'ch  you  have  heard  from  his  lips. 

I  approach  this  discussion  with  diffidence,  for  it  leads  me 
aside  from  the  ordinary  duties  of  my  professional  labor,  into 
fields  that  can  be  more  appropriately  occupied  by  those 
whose  lives  have  been  consecrated  to  the  service  of  God, 
and  whose  duty  it  is  to  lead  men  upward  and  onward  to 
eternal  happiness  and  peace.  But  there  ai'e  some  matters 
which  have  not  yet  been  presented  at  length,  that  I  desire 
briefly  to  submit  to  your  consideration. 

And  in  the  first  place,  what  is  this  trial?  What  are  its 
issues?  what  are  its  purposes?  This  is  not  a  trial  for  breach 
of  trust.  These  are  not  the  prosecutors,  this  not  the  tribunal, 
and  this  not  the  respondent  for  such  a  case.  What  is  it? 
It  is  a  trial  that  should  rise  to  a  high  moral  and  religious  plane, 
and  which  should  be  conducted  in  the  spirit  of  fairness,  candor 
and  truth.  I  do  not  remember  any  important  trial  where  I 
ever  acted  as  counsel  before  where  there  was  not  an  opening 
of  the  case,  —  we  have  not  had  any  thing  in  the  nature  of  an 


257 

opening  here  ;  and  it  seems  to  have  been  the  policy  of  the 
other  side  to  prevent  us  from  having  any  thing  in  the  nature 
of  a  statement  of  their  case  or  of  the  particular  grounds  upon 
which  the}^  intended  to  rel3^  We  have  their  statements  as 
they  appeared  in  print,  at  the  first  hearing  on  certain  pre- 
liminary matters,  and  that  is  all  we  have,  except  certain 
remarks  which  Judge  Hoar  has  made,  to  which  I  shall  here- 
after respectfully  invite  3'our  attention.  Why  is  it,  that  in 
the  consideration  of  this  great  subject  the  ordinary  method 
has  been  departed  from,  and  we  have  nothing  from  the  com- 
plainants as  to  the  course  of  argument  which  they  intend  to 
pursue  ? 

I  have  said,  Mr.  Pi-esident,  this  is  not  a  trial  for  breach  of 
trust.  If  the  heirs  of  these  donors,  these  great  donors,  great 
in  purpose  and  charity,  see  fit  to  go  before  the  proper  tribunal 
and  claim  that  the  funds  which  their  ancestors  dedicated,  as 
the}^  thought,  to  the  service  of  God,  are  misapplied,  then  they 
would  go  before  the  Court  having  jurisdiction  of  trusts,  and 
present  the  case  there.  The  trustees,  and  not  this  respondent 
hold  the  purse  strings.  It  is  not  claimed  that  this  respond- 
ent has  any  control  of  the  moneys  of  the  Institution  at 
Andover,  or  that  he  has  the  power  to  control  them :  and  if 
he  attempted  such  misapplication,  this  is  not  the  tribunal 
to  furnish  the  remedy. 

My  friend  Prof.  Baldwin  rather  complained  in  his  address 
of  yesterday  that  we  had  not  had  the  benefit  of  an  opening, 
and  I  make  the  same  complaint  to-day.  In  response  to 
Prof.  Baldwin's  complaint.  Judge  Hoar  replied  as  follows: 

"  We  have  heard  that  statement  so  often,  sir,  that  I  think 
we  had  better  repudiate  it  once  and  for  all.  We  did  open 
our  case.  Judge  French  stated  it  at  the  original  hearing. 
We  have  not  duplicated  that  opening  by  going  over  it  with 
the  same  three  gentlemen  again,  because  we  have  divided 
these  three  complaints,  which  were  lumped  together,  into 
five  separate  ones.  We  have  taken  for  granted  that  the 
time  which  was  spent  was  profitably  spent,  at  any  rate  to 
save  any  repetition.  Our  case  has  been  opened  elaborately 
and  stated. 


258 

"These  gentlemen  are  charged  with  heterodoxy,  by  which 
I  understand  and  mean  not  the  entertaining  of  any  untrue 
or  erroneous  opinion.     That  is  all  I  meant  when  I  said  there 
was  no  charge  of  heresy.     They  may  entertain  the  soundest 
opinions  that  were  ever  held,  the  most  progressive,  coming 
nearer  and  nearer  to  the  light,  and  approved  by  God  and 
man.     Our  position   is  that  it   is  heterodoxy,  because    the 
framers  of  the  Andover  Creed  have  required  a  certain  con- 
formity to  that  Creed,  and  the  sole  question  which  we  pre- 
sent for  your  decision,  as  the  Board  of  Visitors,  is  whether 
they   have    departed   substantially.     I    should   not   criticise 
very   much    all   we    have    heard   about   the    true    mode    of 
looking   at   the   Creed,   within   the  limits  of   interpretation 
consistently  with  holding  a  more  solid  front  of  theological 
belief." 

Therefore,  I  repeat  this  is  not  a  suit  for  money,  not  a  suit 
for  redress  for  breach  of  trust.     It  is  a  prosecution  for  non- 
conformity to  a  certain  Creed,  and  you  are  asked,  if  you  find 
that  there  is  such  nonconformity,  to  pronounce  your  judg- 
ment and  sentence.     Prof.  Egbert  C.  Smyth  may  be  travel- 
ling in  the  pathway  which  leads  to  the  gates  of  heaven,  but 
that   is   of  no   importance  here.     The  streams  which  issue 
from  the  institution  of  which  he  is  the  head,  may  be  as  "  pure 
as  Siloah's   brook  that  flowed  fast  by  the  oracle  of   God," 
but  no  matter  for  that,  this  Reverend  and  Honorable  tribunal 
is  nevertheless  requested  to  admonish  or  remove  him.     The 
motive  and  the  animus  of  the  prosecutors  are  as  we  think 
quite  apparent.     The  respondent  must  interpret  the  Creed 
as  they  interpret  it.     He  must  consent  to  be  bound  by  their 
fetters.     If  his  belief  is  in  substantial  accordance  with  the 
Creed,  that,  I  think,  is  not  enough  to  satisfy  these  prosecutors. 
He  may  be  travelling  in  the  pathways  which  lead  to  eternal 
blessedness  and  truth,  but,  if  there  be  any  departure  from 
the  Creed  in  its  severest  and  sternest  construction  and  inter- 
pretation, he  must  be  punished.     The  eminent  senior  Counsel 
of  the  complainants  has  with  honesty  stated  what  his  posi- 
tion is.     I  desire  to  read  his  statement  to  you.     I  beg  your 
attention  to  it.     It  is  the  statement  made  by  a  very  able 


259 

man,  who  is  intellectually  as  well  as  morally  honest.  That 
statement  is  as  follows  :  — 

"  I  ought  to  say,  perhaps,  at  tlie  outset,  Mr.  Chairman  and 
gentlemen,  that  I  presume  it  would  be  very  distinctly  under- 
stood by  the  members  of  this  tribunal,  that  I  am  not  here  to 
discuss  any  theological  questions.  I  very  much  suspect  that 
my  clients  would  consider  me  entirely  incompetent  to  be 
trusted  with  any  such  duty  as  that,  and  fear  whether  I  might 
not,  in  my  own  private  personal  capacity,  awa}^  from  this 
reverend  presence  and  these  weighty  considerations,  fall  back 
on  Shakespeare's  phrase,  '  A  plague  on  both  j^our  houses,' 
with  great  cordiality  and  good  will.  Yet  that  will  not,  I 
trust,  interfere  with  my  presenting,  what  I  am  employed  to 
do,  their  views  of  the  relation  of  this  tribunal  to  the  case 
before  you,  under  the  technical  objections  which  liave  been 
so  elaborately  and  at  such  length  argued  by  the 'distinguished 
and  learned  gentleman  who  has  appeared  for  the  respondents. 
The  question  here  before  you  is,  for  your  decision  mainly. 
Have  the  terms  of  the  trust  on  which  certain  citizens  of 
Massachusetts  chose  to  place  their  money  been  complied 
with  by  those  having  it  in  charge,  or  would  it  be  complied 
with  if  they  allowed  a  certain  thing  to  be  done  or  taught  in 
the  Seminary  at  Andover,  which  it  is  charged  before  you 
has  been  taught  and  done. 

"  Now,  that  is  a  matter  which  is  to  be  determined  upon 
certain  legal  rules.  There  are  a  great  many  persons  in 
Massachusetts,  of  whom  I  confess  I  am  one,  who  do  not 
believe  it  is  sound  public  policy  ever  to  make  a  condition  of 
the  vesting  of  property  beyond  the  life  of  one  generation,  on 
opinions.  Nobody  can  tell  where  it  will  lead.  Nobody  can 
tell  that  the  donors  themselves  would  entertain  all  the 
opinions  without  modification.  But  it  may  be  done  under 
the  laws  of  Massachusetts,  and  you  gentlemen  have,  by  ac- 
cepting your  place  on  the  Board  of  Visitors,  charged  with 
the  trust  which  the  statute  of  the  founders  imposed  upon 
you,  undertaken  to  see  that  it  is  honestlj^  and  faithfully  done. 

"  Now,  if  it  were  the  Copernican  system,  or  the  Ptolemaic, 
that  was  in  controversy,  if  a  man  under  the  laws  of  Massa- 


260 

chusetts,  who  owns  his  money,  which  he  has  accumulated  by 
honest  industry,  or  whicli  has  come  lawfully  into  his  posses- 
sion, which  the  law  allows  him  to  dispose  of,  provides  that 
that  money  shall  be  appropriated  to  the  vindication  of  the 
notion  that  the  earth  is  Hat,  and  that  the  sun  goes  around  it 
day  by  da}',  and  you  undertake  a  trust  in  which  that  is  to  be 
maintained,  if  you  find  that  the  persons  who  are  receiving 
the  money  are  teaching  something  that  differs  decidedly  from 
that,  you  do  not  execute  your  trust,  —  perhaps  you  would 
not  hold  so  absurd  a  one  as  that,  — but  you  do  not  execute 
your  trust,  if  you  do  not  decide  that  question  honestly  and 
fairly  when  it  is  before  you  lor  adjudication." 

Now,  there  is  the  proposition,  and  I  beg  your  Honor's  at- 
tention to  the  illustration  which  my  brother  has  given.  If 
a  man  gives  his  money  to  teach  the  false  doctrine  that  the 
earth  is  flat,  then  it  is  the  duty  of  the  persons  who  have  that 
money  in  trust,  to  cause  that  falsehood  to  be  taught.  And, 
by  analogy,  if  there  be  in  this  written  Creed  of  Andover 
something  which  you  know,  and  I  know,  and  the  world  to- 
day knows,  is  false,  you  are  invoked  by  the  argument  and 
the  logic  of  my  brother,  to*  execute  the  trust  in  such  a  man- 
ner that  the  false  things  shall  be  taught  under  your  direc- 
tion. If  that  is  the  law,  I  respectfully  suggest  that  these 
prosecutors  might  find  better  employment  than  seeking  to 
enforce  it. 

So  far,  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  I  have  discussed  the 
general  and  the  moral  aspects  of  the  case.  I  come  now  to 
this  complaint,  and  I  ask  your  attention  to  it.  The  rules  of 
law  (which  in  this  regard  are  also  the  rules  of  common  sense) 
require  that  when  a  man  comes  before  any  tribunal  with 
grave  charges  against  another  man,  it  is  his  duty  to  prove 
them.  That  burden,  by  all  moral  and  legal  rules,  rests  upon 
these  prosecutors.  And  what  have  they  done  ?  We  have 
heard  the  sounding  notes  of  preparation.  It  has  been 
heralded  forth  that  this  respondent  was  to  be  proved  guilty, 
not  only  of  heterodoxy,  but  of  heres}',  and  that  this  noble 
man,  whose  high  character  and  learning  nobody  is  bold 
enough  to  question,  had  broken  solemn  promises,  and  beeu 


261 

false  to  his  faith,  and  to  his  duty.  That  is  the  charge.  In 
the  name  of  all  that  is  just,  he  who  prefers  such  charges 
should  be  held  by  you  up  to  the  full  measure  of  his  duty, 
either  to  abandon  the  charges  or  to  prove  them. 

Who  is  Professor  Egbert  C.  Smyth,  and  who  are  his  asso- 
ciates in  this  de'fence?  Professor  Egbert  C.  Smyth  is  a  man 
of  learning,  a  man  of  piety,  a  man  of  truth.  He  has  been 
for  more  than  a  score  of  jea.vs  a  teacher  in  this  institution 
which  so  many  people  love.  Under  his  teachings  have  sat 
scores  and  hundreds  of  men,  who  have  gone  forth  to  the 
whole  world,  and  through  them  the  voice  of  Andover  has 
been  heard  at  home  and  abroad. 

I  think  that  all  of  the  .Professors,  who  are  here  accused 
of  heresy  or  heterodoxy,  are  admitted  to  be  men  of  piety, 
of  ability,  and  of  learning.  No  one  ventures  here  to  assert 
that  any  of  them  lack  these  important  qualities. 

How  are  the  charges  proved  against  this  respondent  and 
his  associates?  My  brother  French  offered  in  evidence  some 
extracts  from  a  book  written  by  these  Professors  or  some  of 
them  called  "  Progressive  Orthodoxy,"  and  some  extracts 
from  two  "Andover  Reviews,"  and  sat  down.  He  then  said 
in  substance  that  that  was  his  case.  Progressive  Orthodoxy ! 
I  do  not  think  my  brother  or  his  clients  love  the  word  "pro- 
gressive." It  alarmed  them,  and  if  it  had  not  been  for  that 
fatal  word  in  the  title,  I  doubt  whether  anybody  would  have 
found  any  heresy  in  the  book.  The  word  "  progressive  " 
suggests  at  once  to  them  the  ideas  of  heresy.  "  Progressive 
Orthodoxy"  and  two  "Andover  Reviews"  are  the  proofs 
which  these  gentlemen  bring  of  the  grave  offences  charged 
"  of  a  breach  of  trust  which  has  scarcely  a  parallel  in  an  age 
filled  with  them."  Would  you  not  have  thought,  Mr.  Chair- 
man, that  some  out  of  the  scores  and  even  hundreds  of  men 
who  have  been  taught  by  Dr.  Smith,  who  have  heard  his 
words,  and  have  listened  to  his  teachings  would  have  been 
brought  here  to  testify  to  his  heresy  or  heterodoxy  ?  What 
has  he  taught  in  the  lecture-room  at  Andover  ?  What  has 
he  proclaimed  from  the  pulpit?  Hundreds  of  living  men 
have  listened  to  his  teachings,  and  know  how  he  has  dis- 


262 

charged  the  duties  of  his  office.  Thousands  have  heard  him 
from  the  pulpit.  These  men  know  whether  he  has  tauglit 
or  proclaimed  any  thing  which  is  heretical  in  its  character, 
or  which  is  opposed  to  the  Creed  of  Andover.  None  of  these 
men  are  brought  here  to  testify.  Of  his  teachings  in  his 
office,  you  have  learned  nothing  from  the  prosecutors.  They 
rest  their  case  upon  these  garbled  extracts,  torn  from  their 
context  and  perverted  from  their  true  meaning.  That  is  all 
the  evidence  they  have  produced.  And  when  my  brother 
French  said  this  was  their  case  and  sat  down,  as  we  thought, 
with  a  solemn  and  somewhat  distressed  countenance,  we 
were  amazed.  As  I  looked  at  him,  there  came  rushing  upon 
my  recollection  at  that  moment  a  story  which  I  once  heard. 
It  was  given  as  a  specimen  of  Scotch  wit.  A  Scotch  clergy- 
man having  wrought  himself  into  tears,  one  of  his  parishion- 
ers turning  to  another  said,  "  What  is  the  minister  grieving 
about  ?  "  The  reply  was  "  Were  you  where  he  is,  and  had 
as  little  to  say  for  yourself  as  he  has,  you  would  grieve 
too." 

It  is  a  well-established  principle,  established  by  that  learned 
tribunal  of  which  my  brother  Hoar  was  once  an  ornament, 
that  the  absence  of  testimony  which  can  be  produced,  is  a 
circumstance  which  courts  and  juries  are  to  consider.  Has 
Prof.  Smyth  taught  any  heresy  in  the  lecture  room  at  Ando- 
ver, has  he  taught  heterodoxy  there  ?  Where  are  the  pupils  ? 
Where  are  the  Trustees,  under  whose  immediate  supervision 
he  performs  his  duty?  Has  any  one  of  them  heard  it  ?  Not 
one.  Who  has  ?  Nobody  has  heard  it ;  and  the  only  proof 
of  his  heterodoxy  given,  is  from  perverted  and  garbled  quo- 
tations to  which  I  have  referred. 

I  ask  the  attention  of  this  Honorable  Court  to  a  statement 
of  Prof.  Smyth  in  his  answer : 

"  In  conclusion,  I  would  respectfully  call  your  attention  to 
the  number  and  character  of  the  offences  for  which  I  am 
arraigned.  I  am  charged  with  disbelieving  the  trustworthi- 
ness of  the  Scriptures  as  a  religious  guide  ;  with  holding  a 
humanitarian  view  of  Christ ;  with  denying  the  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity ;  with  disowning  man's  free  agency,  his  universal 


263 

sinfulness  and  guilt,  and  exposure  to  the  penalty  of  the  law; 
with  rejecting  tlie  doctrine  of  Atonement  b}^  the  sufferings 
and  death  of  Christ ;  with  teaching  that  salvation  is  not 
'wholly  of  grace;'  and  with  breaking  'in  repeated  instances,' 
'solemn  promises.'  Such  accusations  have  no  reality  to  me. 
I  accept  the  Creed  of  the  Seminary,  interpreting  it  by  no 
private  opinion,  but  according  to  the  well  understood  and 
commonly  recognized  laws  of  Creed-acceptance,  laws  which 
have  been  in  vogue  in  this  country  from  the  earliest  times, 
and  which  have  governed  subscriptions  in  the  history  of  this 
Seminary  from  the  beginning,  and  which  have  been  recently 
recognized  by  3'our  Reverend  and  Honorable  Body.  I  wel- 
come, if  for  any  reason  you  deem  such  scrutiny  necessary 
or  useful,  the  most  searching  examination  possible  into  the 
accusations  now  preferred,  and  I  shall  be  pleased  to  expedite 
.and  facilitate  such  examination  to  the  full  extent  of  my 
power. 

"  At  the  same  time,  I  hereby  deny  that  I  hold  any  beliefs, 
or  have  taught  doctrines  or  theories  not  in  harmony  with  or 
which  are  antagonistic  to  the  Constitution  or  Statutes  of  the 
Theological  Institution  in  Phillips  Academy,  Andover,  in 
which  I  am  Brown  Professor  of  Ecclesiastical  History,  or 
contrary  to  the  '  true  intention  '  of  its  founders,  as  expressed 
in  these  Statutes,  or  that  I  believe  or  teach  any  thing  antag- 
onistic or  opposed  to  the  Creed  of  the  said  Institution,  or  in 
violation  of  the  statutory  requirements  or  the  'true  intention' 
of  the  Founders  as  expressed  in  their  Statutes." 

Is  Prof.  Smyth  an  intelligent  man?  Does  he  know  whereof 
he  speaks?  Is  Prof.  Smyth  a  truthful  man?  Then,  if  he  be 
intelligent  and  true,  that  denial  is  worth  whole  pages  of 
accusation.  Suppose  that  these  writings  which  have  been 
put  in  here  from  "  Progressive  Orthodoxy "  and  from  the 
"  Andover  Review"  were  his,  although  but  very  few  of  them 
are,  —  but  he  does  not  stand  upon  any  such  defence  as  that, 
—  suppose  they  are  his,  and  he  comes  in  as  a  true  and  honest 
man  and  says  what  he  has  said  in  solemn  phrase  before  you, 
does  not  that  utterance  sweep  away  all  these  accusations  and 
meet  and  destroy  all  the  evidence  they  have  offered?     You 


264 

Lave  heard  what  he  says,  and  who,  Mr.  President,  shall  gain- 
say what  Professor  Smyth  asserts?  If  what  he  says  is  true, 
this  is  both  an  answer  and  a  perfect  and  full  defence.  Who 
shall  say  that  Dr.  Smyth  does  not  believe  in  all  the  doctrines 
of  the  Creed,  when  he  says  he  does,  and  when  he  says  he 
has  signed  it  conscientiously  and  has  kept  it  faithfully  ? 

I  shall  not  go  into  any  theological  discussion,  and  the 
suggestions  which  I  am  making  seem  to  me  to  steer  clear  of 
that.  But  this,  I  think,  even  with  my  limited  information 
and  learning  upon  the  question,  I  may  say :  That  the  Creed 
of  Andover  is  not  that  narrow,  bigoted,  confined  Creed  which 
many  people  think  it  is  and  must  be,  remembering  the  time 
of  its  origin.  Taken  in  its  entirety,  and  it  cannot  be  properly 
taken  except  in  its  entirety,  the  Creed  is  a  broad  one,  com- 
paratively, and  is  not  confined  to  the  narrow,  limited  con- 
struction which  my  brethren  on  the  other  side,  or  their 
clients,  attempt  to  place  upon  it.  It'  is,  Mr.  Chairman  and 
gentlemen,  no  Procrustean  bed,  upon  which  the  limbs  of  him 
who  is  placed  upon  it,  if  they  are  not  long  enough  to  fill  it, 
are  to  be  stretched  to  its  length,  or,  if  they  are  too  long,  are 
to  be  lopped  off,  to  meet  its  proportions.  That  is  not  the 
Andover  Creed.  That  is  the  Creed  which  our  opponents 
seek  to  have  you  impose  upon  the  Seminary.  That  is  the 
kind  of  furniture  you  are  asked  to  provide  for  the  bed-cham- 
bers at  Andover.  It  is  not  such  a  Creed,  by  any  just  or  by 
any  proper  construction  of  words. 

Prof.  Smyth  has  gone  over  the  matter  in  detail,  with  an 
exhaustive  learning,  and  with  a  fervid  eloquence,  and  has 
shown  you,  if  human  logic  can  show  you,  that  these  extracts 
that  have  been  put  in  evidence,  if  properly  taken,  upon  any 
honest  construction,  violate  no  article  in  that  Creed.  I  have 
said  that  it  is  a  broad  and  a  liberal  Creed.  I  think  I  can 
further  say  that  it  contains  within  itself  some  elements  of 
contradiction,  because  it  was  not  the  work  of  one  mind,  nor 
was  it  the  work  of  concurrent  minds,  meaning  by  concurrent, 
minds  which  travel  in  the  same  pathway.  It  was  the  result 
of  a  compromise,  and  as  you,  with  your  power  of  analysis, 
look  it  over,  you  find  that  when  it  is  separated  into  parts. 


265 

and  disjointed,  some  parts  of  it  oppose  other  parts.  But  that 
has  not  been  the  practical  construction  of  it  heretofore.  The 
practical  construction  of  the  Andover  Creed,  as  appears 
clearly  from  the  historical  matters  which  have  been  presented 
to  you,  has  been  to  take  it  as  a  whole,  and  you  cannot  fairly 
take  it  any  other  way. 

Now,  then,  I  say  for  reasons  which,  if  I  should  undertake 
to  repeat  them,  would  sound  feeble  in  comparison  with  the 
way  in  which  they  have  been  put  by  Dr.  Smyth  and  by  my 
associates,  there  is  nothing  in  the  evidence  which  the  com- 
plainants have  produced  which  shows  that  any  doctrine  held 
by  Dr.  Smyth  or  by  his  associate  professors,  contravenes  any 
substantial  doctrine  of  the  Creed. 

I  have  said  that  the  Creed  was  the  work  of  several  minds 
holding  somewhat  varied  opinions,  and  that  the  framers  of 
the  Creed  came  as  near  together  as  men  of  varied  opinions 
could  come,  and  gave  expression  to  their  beliefs  in  the  form 
of  the  Creed  which  has  stood  the  test  of  years.  I  have  said 
that  it  is  a  broad  Creed.  Were  it  otherwise  in  its  general 
character,  it  would  be  redeemed  by  the  clause  which  I  pro- 
pose now  to  read  to  you: 

"And  furthermore,  I  do  solemnly  promise,  that  I  will  open 
and  explain  the  Scriptures  to  my  pupils  with  integrity  and 
faithfulness ;  that  I  will  maintain  and  inculcate  the  Chris- 
tian faith,  as  expressed  in  the  Creed  by  me  now  repeated, 
together  with  all  the  other  doctrines  and  duty  of  our  Holy 
Religion,  so  far  as  may  appertain  to  my  office,  according  to 
the  best  light  God  shall  give  me." 

I  see  here  something  more  than  the  dawn  of  the  light  of 
religious  freedom.  I  see  that  upon  Andover  Hill,  years  and 
years  ago,  the  light  of  truth  burst  upon  men.  I  see  that 
upon  Andover  Hill  shackles  were  broken.  I  learn  that  upon 
Andover  Hill  it  was  long  ago  determined  that  devout  and 
Christian  men  mioht  teach  the  doctrines  of  the  Creed  accord- 
ing  to  the  best  light  God  should  give  them.  And  Iras  Prof. 
Egbert  C.  Smyth,  by  anybod3^'s  contention,  done  otherwise 
than  to  teach  the  doctrines  of  the  Holy  Religion  and  of  the 
Creed,  according  to  the  best  light  God  has  given  him  ?     Did 


266 

not  that  sentence,  or  part  of  a  sentence,  "according  to  the 
best  light  God  shall  give  me,"  have  a  most  significant  mean- 
ing? Did  not  that  open  to  religious  and  devout  men,  who 
agreed  to  the  general  and  substantial  doctrines  of  the  faith, 
a  certain  degree  of  liberty,  and  was  it  not  intended  it  should 
do  so?  Will  anybody,  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  who 
recognizes  his  obligations  to  God,  and  his  duties  to  man  say, 
upon  the  facts  which  are  before  you,  that  Dr.  Egbert  C. 
Smyth  has  done  any  thing  but  teach  the  doctrines  of  his  faith 
according  to  the  best  light  God  has  given  him  ?  And  if  he 
has  done  that,  he  has  done  what  he  is  permitted  to  do  by  this 
very  Creed,  and  by  the  form  of  the  obligations  which  he  has 
assumed. 

Now,  let  me  repeat  a  little.  I  say  that  the  proof  has 
failed  and  ingloriously  failed.  Where  are  the  living  wit- 
nesses who  can  come  here  and  by  their  speech  condemn  Prof. 
Smyth,  if  he  is  to  be  condemned  ?  No  voice  from  the  lecture 
room  comes  here  by  any  procurement  of  these  prosecutors. 
No  voice  from  any  pulpit  which  he  has  filled  comes  here  by 
any  procurement  of  theirs.  There  has  been  none  of  that 
essential  and  important  testimony  which  ought  to  have  been 
adduced  by  those  who  make  this  charge  of  broken  promises. 
The  testimony  from  Progressive  Orthodox3%  and  those  two 
Reviews,  taken  in  the  spirit  in  which  they  were  written,  and 
honestly  interpreted  prove  nothing  ;  and  I  challenge  the 
reverend  and  legal  gentlemen  who  shall  respond,  to  meet,  if 
they  can,  the  candid  and  clear  statements  and  forcible  loo-ic 
of  Dr.  Smyth. 

You,  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  constitute  a  perpetual 
Court.  It  never  ceases  to  exist.  Different  men  may  fill 
your  seats,  but  the  Court  is  perpetual.  If  what  I  have  heard 
read  here  by  Dr.  Smyth  and  by  my  brother  Russell,  who  is 
ver}^  familiar  with  matters  connected  with  your  institution, 
be  true,  then  there  has  been  no  time  in  the  historj^  of 
Andover  when  so  few  charges  of  heterodoxy  or  heresy  could 
have  been  made  as  now.  You  have  heard  the  doctrines  and 
utterances  of  the  old  divines.  You  have  heard  of  old  con- 
troversies  at  Andover,  of  differences  of  opinion  in  former 


267 

years,  which  furnished  better  reasons  for  charges  of  heresy 
than  now  can  possibly  exist.  I  do  not  think  from  what  I 
have  learned  that  there  has  ever  been  an  entire  concurrence 
of  opinion  in  matters  of  faith  in  the  officers  and  teachers  of 
this  Institution.  I  do  not  think  there  ever  can  be  such  con- 
currence. Men  will  complain  and  if  they  bring  all  their 
complaints  before  you,  you  will  be  not  only  a  perpetual 
court,  but  you  will  be  in  perpetual  service.  My  brethren 
could  find  enough  in  these  old  documents  which  have  been 
read  for  the  employment  of  a  dozen  courts,  if  the  authors 
had  not  passed  awa3%  and  gone  to  their  great  account.  But 
when  I  remember  all  this,  and  see  what  the  practice  of  this 
Institution  has  been,  I  respect  it  the  more,  because  it  has 
allowed,  within  certain  limits,  the  practice  of  free  religious 
thought.  It  has  been  allowed,  and  I  am  happy  to  say  that 
this  tribunal  has  allowed  it,  —  that  we  have  proved  here. 

How  did  most  of  these  five  professors  enter  upon  their 
sacred  service  at  this  Institution  ?  It  was  done  in  the  way 
which  they  have  stated  here,  in  which  there  was  not  an 
absolute  taking  of  the  Creed  without  qualification,  which 
qualification  was  made  before  the  Trustees  and  the  Visitors 
in  open  assembly  at  the  time  of  their  being  installed.  What 
voice,  Mr.  President,  was  raised  then  to  say  that  they  should 
do  that  which  my  brother  Hoar  now  claims  they  ought  to 
have  done?  Who  said  to  them:  "If  the  Creed  says  the 
earth  is  flat,  you,  also,  must  say  it  is  flat.  You  shall  not 
qualify  it.  It  is  an  ironclad  Creed.  The  sternest  interpre- 
tation, even  in  these  days  of  light,  shall  be  placed  upon  it, 
and  if  we  can  catch  you  tripping  in  any  little  detail,  in  any 
thing  not  essential,  we  will  prosecute,  or  persecute,  you  for 
heterodoxy  or  heresy.  Our  Creed  is  chained  to  the  past. 
Its  chains  shall  not  be  broken.  If  you  are  in  the  road  of 
progression,  your  ways  are  not  our  ways.  Progression  is 
heresy  "  ? 

Now  let  us  see  the  spirit,  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen, 
which,  knowing  this  Board  as  I  do  I  should  expect,  and  the 
public  would  expect,  would  be  manifested  by  it.  One  of 
the  grave  charges  which  the  prosecutors  make  here  is  that 


268 

Prof.  Smyth  maintains,  holds  and  inculcates  a  possible  pro- 
bation after  death.  Now,  Prof.  Newman  Sm3^th  had  written 
a  book,  before  he  was  presented  as  a  professor  at  Andover, 
and  this  book  was  known.     And  I  beg  to  read  from  it. 

"  Then  there  is  a  third  truth  which  seems  to  be  left  in 
the  shadows  of  the  Gospel  of  the  Kingdom  ;  and  that  is  the 
nature  and  intent  of  the  divine  administration  of  Hades  — 
the  place  of  departed  spirits  —  from  the  time  the  dying  leave 
the  present  world  until  the  judgment  day.  There  is  a  period 
of  life  after  death  ;  and  before  that  last  great  day,  when  this 
world-age  shall  be  over,  of  which  the  Bible  gives  us  some 
intimation,  but  concerning  which  it  affords  no  distinct  reve- 
lation. It  does  tell  us  something  concerning  that  interme- 
diate state :  enough  at  least  to  assure  us  that  it  shall  not 
prove  to  be  a  loss  of  consciousness,  and  purposeless  sleep  of 
ages,  for  souls  awaiting  the  great  day  of  awakening." 

"  Such  are  the  Biblical  elements  of  the  doctrine  of  the  in- 
termediate life,  and  they  ought  not  to  be  quietly  ignored  by 
Orthodox  theology,  or  left  unadjusted  to  our  whole  teaching 
concerning  the  last  things.  If  it  be  said  that  there  is  danger, 
that  the  consideration  of  these  obscure  passages  might  lead 
individuals  to  whom  the  Gospel  is  now  preached  to  cherish 
fallacious  hopes  of  a  second  probation  after  death,  it  is  also 
true  that  the  failure  to  take  into  account  these  hints  and 
possibilities  of  Scripture,  may  involve  for  us,  the  righteous- 
ness of  the  government  of  God  in  great  difficulty  and  betray 
us  into  an  un-Scriptural  dogmatism  with  regard  to  God's 
dealing  with  tliose  who  die  without  the  Gospel.  The  only 
really  dangerous  thing  is  error  —  to  go  bej-ond  or  to  fall  short 
of,  the  truth  of  revelation  —  Romanism  in  Luther's  day,  had 
gone  far  bej'ond  it ;  but  that  is  no  reason  why  Protestantism 
should  now  fall  short  of  it." 

These  words  were  written  by  the  Rev.  Newman  Smyth 
befure  his  examination.  If  any  as  strong  language  has  been 
used  by  his  brother,  Egbert  C.  Smyth,  upon  that  question,  I 
have  failed  to  see  it.  What  did  this  enlightened  Board  do  ? 
I  hope  that  I  may  be  corrected  if  I  am  mistaken;  I  state 
now  what  I  have  heard.     What  did  this  enlightened  Board 


269 

do  ?  They  did  not  confirm  the  nomination  of  this  gentleman 
to  his  professorship,  but  expressly  declared  that  it  was  not 
in  consequence  of  any  of  his  theological  views.  You  followed 
in  the  light  of  the  example  of  your  predecessors.  You  rec 
ognized  the  spirit  of  religious  freedom,  and  did  not  reject  the 
nomination  on  account  of  the  views  of  the  candidate  upon 
this  question.  But  what  are  you  asked  to  do  now?  You 
are  asked  to  punish  Dr.  Egbert  C.  Smyth  for  entertaining 
the  same  views  which  his  brother  entertained,  and  which  3'ou 
have  declared  did  not  furnish  a  reason  for  rejection  of  the 
nomination  of  the  latter  for  a  professorship  at  Andover. 
Y''ou  are  asked  for  this  among  other  reasons  to  say  that  his 
voice  shall  be  heard  no  more  at  Andover. 

There  is  one  thing  as  to  the  purposes  and  wishes  of  our 
brethren  and  of  these  prosecutors,  of  which  we  have  not 
been  clearly  informed.     What  do  they  wish  you  to  do  with 
Dr.   Egbert  C.  Smyth?     My  brother.  Judge   Hoar,   in    the 
words  which  I  have  read  to  you,  recognized  the  candor  of 
this  respondent,  and  he,  as  does  everybody  else,  recognizes 
in  him  true  manhood  and  the   spirit  of  a  devout  Christian. 
What  do  the  prosecutors  want  you  to  do  with  such  a  man,  — 
a  rare  man,  whose  equal  and  peer  in  all  respects  it  will  be 
difficult  to  find  ?     What  do  they  want  you  to   do  with   this 
great  teacher  and  upright  Christian  man  ?     Will  you  send 
him  from  the  halls  of  Andover,  or  will  you  keep  him  there 
and  fetter  him  ?     One  or  the  other  thing  they  must  want  you 
to  do,  or  else  they  have  no  occasion  to  be  present  here.     I 
suppose  that  is  what  Dr.  Wellman  wants,  —  one  of  the  Trus- 
tees, who  did  not  desire  to  trust  his  own  body  to  do  the  duty 
which  the  Statutes  imposed  upon  them,  of  investigating  heresy 
and  heterodoxy ;  did  not  like  to  trust  them,  but  stepped  out- 
side  and    came  here,  signing  himself  ••'  Trustee."      That  is 
wliat  Dr.  Wellman,  I  suppose,  wants,  but  I  think  he  will  de- 
sire it  long  before  he  will  get  it.     And  he  wants  these  other 
gentlemen,  a  magnificent  Faculty,  removed,  or  trammelled, 
or  censured.     If  you  send  them  away,  that  will  of  course  be 
the  end  of  them  at  Andover,  but  not  elsewhere.    If  you  fetter 
them,  or  trammel  them,  or  admonish  them,  the  days  of  their 


270 

usefulness  at  Andover  will  be  over.  What  are  you  going  to 
do?  For  what  purpose  was  this  high,  grave  and  important 
tribunal  called  together  but  to  do  one  or  the  other  of  these 
things?  But  with  the  most  profound  respect  for  this  tribu- 
nal, I  say  that  to  do  either  one  of  these  things  would  be,  — 
I  measure  my  words,  —  an  outrage.  While  I  respect  all 
tribunals  (and  especially  this),  that  have  in  charge  matters 
of  important  public  concern,  I  must  be  pardoned  for  saying 
that  there  is  a  tribunal  that  is  above  and  over  them  all.  I 
allude  now  not  to  that  great  tribunal,  to  which  we  all  must 
at  length  submit  ourselves,  but  to  that  human  tribunal,  the 
tribunal  of  intelligent,  honest  and  Christian  public  opinion, 
a  tribunal,  as  Mr.  Webster  said,  which  men,  associations,  and 
even  nations  must  regard. 

Now,  to  do  what  these  gentlemen  ask  you  to  do,  would 
be  not  only  to  outrage  honest,  true,  public  sentiment,  but 
to  outrage  the  principles  of  religion,  justice  and  law. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  began  by  saying  that  I  had  but  a  few 
words  to  utter.  I  fear  I  have  gone  beyond  my  suggestion, 
certainly  I  have  gone  beyond  my  intention.  Andover  is  a 
place  of  much  religious  importance.  I  would  like  to  read  at 
this  point,  possibly  a  little  out  of  its  connection,  an  extract 
from  the  words  of  the  donors.  It  sometimes,  perhaps  not 
very  often,  happens  that  God  gives  to  large  hearts  large 
means  —  it  was  so  here.  Let  me  read  it,  and  commend  it  to 
the  attention  of  the  four  gentlemen  who  institute  and  prose- 
cute these  pi'oceedings. 

"To  the  Spirit  of  Truth,  to  the  Divine  Author  of  our 
faith,  to  the  Only  Wise  God,  we  desire  in  sincerity  to  present 
this  our  humble  offering ;  devoutly  imploring  the  Father  of 
Lights,  richly  to  indue  with  wisdom  from  above  all  His  ser- 
vants, the  Visitors  of  the  Foundation,  the  Trustees  of  the 
Seminary ;  and  with  spiritual  understanding  the  Professors 
therein ;  that,  being  illuminated  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  their 
doctrine  may  drop  as  the  rain;  and  that  their  pupils  may 
become  trees  of  renown  in  the  courts  of  our  God,  whereby 
He  may  be  glorified." 

Suppose,  Mr.  President,  a  word  of  yours  could  bring  these 


271 

Founders  back  to  life,  that  they  might  look  upon  this  scene. 
Suppose  in  obedience  to  your  call,  they  should  come  here 
filled  with  the  spirit  in  which  that  last  utterance  of  theirs 
was  made,  what  do  you  think  they  would  say?  Would  they 
look  at  Egbert  C.  Smyth,  and  say  to  him  "Abandon  your 
office,  leave  the  Institution,  which  our  benefactions  have 
founded  !  "  ?  Can  you  not  imagine  that  they  might  say  to  him, 
"  You  have  ability,  piety  and  learning.  You  have  been  true 
and  faithful.  Continue  in  your  service.  Point  out  to  men  the 
paths  which  lead  to  blessedness  and  peace,  with  the  best  light 
God  has  given  you  "  ?  Might  they  not  say  to  these  prosecu- 
tors, "  Cease  this  strife,  and  obtain,  if  you  can,  the  spirit 
under  which  we  made  our  gifts  to  this  Institution  "  ? 

Andover  is  loved  by  large  numbers  of  those  who  believe 
in  the  doctrines  taught  there.  It  is  respected  by  those  out- 
side of  it.  Its  history  has  been  filled  with  achievements 
worthy  of  the  love  of  religion  and  learning  which  inspired  its 
origin.  Keep  it !  Keep  it  faithfully  !  Let  it  not  become  the 
plaything  of  human  passions,  or  the  instrument  of  a  bigot's 
zeal.  Save  it!  Rescue  it  from  these  troubles,  and  men  will 
bless  you  for  the  service  ! 


STATEMENT   OF   PROFESSOR   WILLIAM   J.   TUCKER. 


3Ir.  President,  and  Grentlemen  of  the  Board  of  Visitors : 

It  is  not  my  intention,  nor  the  intention  of  the  respondents 
who  may  follow  me,  to  traverse  the  ground  covered  in  the 
argument  of  our  honored  colleague.  We  adopt  by  common 
consent  the  views  therein  expressed  in  regard  to  the  Creed 
of  the  Seminary,  and  the  terms  of  subscription  to  it,  and  we 
accept  the  answer  therein  made  to  the  charges  and  specifica- 
tions of  the  complainants.  If  now  we  make  further  demands 
upon  your  time  in  this  hearing  —  and  our  demands  will  not 
be  large  —  to  meet  the  charges  as  preferred  against  us  in 
person,  it  is  because  of  personal  relations  which  we  severally 
hold  to  the  Creed  of  the  Seminary.  There  are  obligations 
which  apply  to  us  in  common,  and  there  are  obligations  and 
requirements  which  derive  a  special  meaning  and  force  from 
their  application  to  the  departments  which  we  individually 
represent. 

Before  I  pass  to  my  personal  defense,  I  ask  your  indul- 
gence for  the  moment  to  an  incidental  matter  of  general  inter- 
est. During  the  progress  of  this  hearing,  frequent  reference 
has  been  made  in  somewhat  depreciatory  language  to  the 
interposition  of  counsel  on  behalf  of  the  respondents.  I  call 
up  the  fact  of  the  employment  of  counsel  not  for  apology  but 
for  explanation.  The  first  intimation  which  we  received  of 
these  proceedings  was  in  the  receipt  of  a  communication  from 
your  honorable  body  containing  the  charges  and  specifica- 
tions of  the  complainants,  accompanied  by  an  order  that  we 
file  an  answer  within  fifteen  days.  We  had  no  knowledge 
whatever  of  the  affair  beyond  that  which  was  conveyed  in 


273 

the  communication  before  us.  We  knew  nothing  of  the 
origin  or  motive  or  resources  of  the  prosecution.  It  seemed 
to  be  an  organized  movement  and  representative  of  some- 
thing, for  one  of  the  prosecutors  signed  himself  "  a  trustee  " 
and  the  others  "  a  committee  of  certain  of  the  Alumni." 
To  this  communication  we  made  reply  at  the  specified 
time,  not  only  without  counsel,  but  without  having  taken 
legal  advice ;  and  each  man  made  reply  for  himself,  not  as  in 
the  answer  to  the  amended  complaint,  when  we  united  in  a 
common  reply.  It  was  not  until  the  case  began  to  assume  a 
judicial  character  under  the  subsequent  orders  of  your  Board, 
that  we  introduced  counsel,  and  from  that  time  the  case  has 
gone  on  upon  its  legal  or  theological  side  as  either  issue  has  for 
the  time  been  uppermost.  I  have  recalled  this  fact,  in  refer- 
ence to  our  first  answer,  to  j-our  knowledge,  because  it  has 
been  overlooked  and  obscured.  You  will  bear  us  witness  that 
the  original  reply  anticipated  all  legal  procedures,  and  that  it 
■was  direct,  frank  and  specific  upon  the  theological  questions 
at  issue. 

The  charge,  Mr.  President,  upon  which  I  appear  before 
you  in  this  hearing,  I  now  understand  to  be  that  of  hetero^ 
doxy  in  respect  to  the  Creed,  involving  the  more  special 
charge  upon  myself  in  connection  with  Professor  Smyth, 
according  to  the  terms  of  our  foundations,  that  I  am  "not 
an  orthodox  and  consistent  Calvinist."  Up  to  the  closing 
aigument  for  the  complainants,  there  seemed  to  be  no  little 
confusion  between  the  complainants  and  their  counsel  as  to 
the  exact  nature  of  this  prosecution,  whether  it  were  for 
breach  of  trust  or  for  heresy.  The  argument  to  which  I  have 
referred  seems  to  settle  this  question.  The  Counsel  said ; 
*'  There  is  no  breach  of  trust  suggested  against  Professor 
Smyth  by  me,  and  there  has  not  been.  It  must  have  been 
onl}'-  casually,  by  inference,  if  it  has  ever  been  introduced 
into  these  proceedings.  We  never  expected  any  such  thing 
would  be  done."  And  again  "  I  should  suppose  that  if  any 
doctrine,  held  as  a  distinctive  doctrine  by  this  interesting 
company  of  persons,  not  intended  in  any  way  to  be  approved, 


274 

commended  or  forwarded  by  the  Foundation  of  the  Andover 
Theological  Seminary,  who  seemed  to  be  grouped  here  at  the 
end  of  the  creed,  ahiiost  on  the  principle  of  the  tares,  bind- 
ing them  in  bundles  to  burn  them,  — '  In  opposition  not  only 
to  Atheists  and  Infidels,  but  to  Jews,  Papists,  Mahometans, 
Arians,  Pelagians,  Antinominians,  Arminians,  Socinians,  Sa- 
bellians.  Unitarians,  and  Universalists,  and  all  other  heresies 
and  errors,'  —  I  should  suppose  that  there  could  be  no  doubt 
that  if  there  were  anything  which  could  be  included  in  that 
list,  could  be  proved  and  established  in  this  theological  dis- 
cussion as  having  been  taught  by  a  professor  at  Andover, 
you  would  have  no  difficulty  about  it." 

Assuming  from  these  admissions  that  the  charge  is  that  of 
heterodoxy  in  regard  to  the  Creed  of  the  Seminary,  I  will 
say  that  I  accept  without  question,  whatever  of  responsibil- 
ity may  attach  to  the  publication  of  the  articles,  and  of  the 
book,  from  which  the  citations  in  support  of  the  charges 
have  been  drawn.  I  make  no  distinction  between  what  I 
teach  and  what  I  publish,  alone  or  in  responsible  connection 
with  others,  save  in  this  regard  —  and  upon  this  distinction 
I  do  insist  —  I  endeavor  to  teach  according  to  the  natural 
proportion  of  truth  ;  I  publish  according  to  the  exigencies  of 
public  discussion,  claiming  in  this  regard  the  unvexed  right 
of  publication,  subject  only  to  fidelity  to  the  Constitution 
and  Creed  of  the  Seminary  in  the  subject-matter  of  what  I 
publish. 

My  defense  is  twofold.  It  covers  my  personal  and  my  offi- 
cial relation  to  the  Creed. 

I  answer  first ;  that  the  theology  of  "  Progressive  Ortho- 
doxy "  is  a  natural  and  legitimate  outcome  of  the  Creed  of 
the  Seminary,  especially  at  the  point  of  greatest  contention, 
that  of  probation  for  all  men  under  the  gospel.  I  may  be 
allowed  to  say  that  there  is  a  presumption  in  favor  of  this 
theology  as  consistent  with  the  teachings  of  Andover,  be- 
cause it  is  held  and  put  forth  by  men  who  are  theologically 
the  product  of  Andover  or  of  the  influences  which  made 
Andover. 

In  the  original  form   under  which  the  charges  were  pre- 


275 

ferred,  three  of  the  four  complainants  signed  themselves  as  a 
Committee  of  "  certain  of  the  Alumni."  This  term  alumni 
has  in  itself  a  significance  which  does  not  necessaril}'  attach 
to  an}^  merely  official  connection  with  the  Seminary.  It  is 
suggestive  of  the  more  sensitive,  if  less  responsible,  relations 
of  loyalty  and  affection.  In  this  respect  to  be  an  alumnus 
is  more  than  to  be  a  professor  or  a  trustee  or  a  visitor. 
When  therefore  a  case  is  made  up  of  certain  alumni  against 
certain  professors,  it  seems  to  be  a  case  in  the  interest  of 
loyalty. 

But,  in  the  present  instance,  of  the  five  accused  professors 
four  are  alumni,  and  of  the  one  who  is  not  an  alumnus,  though 
for  a  considerable  time  a  graduate  student,  it  may  fairly  be 
said  that  in  what  belongs  to  him  by  inheritance,  and  in  what 
he  has  earned  by  long  and  devoted  service,  he  represents  more, 
than  any  other  one  of  us,  of  this  quality  of  affectionate  loy- 
alty. Another  professor,  I  refer  to  Professor  Churchill,  passed 
immediately  upon  graduation  into  the  service  of  the  Seminary. 
And  of  the  remaining  three.  Professors  Harris,  Hincks  and 
myself,  graduating  within  two  or  three  years  of  one  another, 
we  came  back  into  the  service  of  the  Seminary  chiefly  be- 
cause we  were  alumni.  We  were  not  ambitious  of  the  posi- 
tions which  we  now  fill.  Content  and  satisfied  in  the  work  of 
the  pastorate  we  returned  to  Andover  at  its  call  because  we 
loved  Andover.  We  had  its  traditions ;  our  roots  were  in 
its  soil.  And  coming  to  our  chairs  from  the  pastorate,  not 
from  fields  of  speculative  thought,  but  from  contact  with 
men,  we  brought  with  us  those  conceptions  of  Christian 
truth  which  we  have  since  tried  to  unfold.  For  myself  it  is 
absolutely  true,  that  I  am  conscious  of  holding  no  other  gos- 
pel to-day,  in  any  other  spirit  or  with  any  other  conclusion, 
than  that  which  I  held  in  my  active  ministry,  and  it  never 
occurred  to  me,  though  in  the  course  of  my  ministry  I  crossed 
and  recrossed  the  line  of  my  denomination  that  Andover 
would  ever  summon  me  to  account  for  my  holding  of  the 
gospel  as  conti-ary  to  her  traditions,  her  teachings  and  her 
spirit.  I  speak  now  as  an  alumnus,  not  as  a  professor.  And 
in  so  speaking  I  think  that  I  represent  at  least  "  certain  of 


276 

the  Alumni."  For  I  remember  that  when  attempts  have 
been  made  at  reguhirly  constituted  alumni  meetings  to 
inaugurate  proceedings  like  the  present,  they  have  ignomin- 
iouslj  tailed. 

I  am  singled  out,  Mr.  President,  in  connection  with  Pro- 
fessor Smyth  upon  the  charge,  related,  I  suppose  to  the 
theory  of  a  Christian  probation,  that  I  am  not  an  "orthodox 
and  consistent  Calvinist."  You  will  allow  me  to  say,  with- 
out argument,  that  if  I  am  not  "  an  orthodox  and  consistent 
Calvinist,"  according  to  the  Creed,  in  my  theological  convic- 
tions and  methods,  I  am  nothing.  Without  permitting  my- 
self to  put  that  which  is  of  a  name  or  of  a  school  above  that 
which  is  of  Christ,  I  believe  in  Calvinism,  not  as  the  Creed 
found  it  but  as  the  Creed  tried  to  leave  it.  I  believe  in  its 
ruling  idea  and  method  as  against  the  idea  and  method  to 
which  it  is  historically  opposed.  I  locate  the  hope  of  man 
in  the  power  and  purpose  of  God,  not  in  exaggerated  and 
unreal  notions  ©f  man's  ability.  Christianity  is  to  me  above 
all  things  a  religion  of  motives.  Calvinism  is  a  religion  of 
motives.  It  emphasizes  the  "  power  of  God  "  unto  salvation, 
though  in  its  older  and  higher  forms  it  limits  the  application 
of  the  power,  shutting  it  up  within  an  arbitrary  election. 
The  Creed  takes  up  this  idea  of  power  which  inheres  in  Cal- 
vinism and  gives  it  breadth  and  freedom.  To  me  it  is  an 
inspiration,  remembering  the  struggle  of  which  the  Creed 
bears  ineradicable  marks,  which  makes  the  Creed  a  thing  of 
life  and  not  an  instrument  of  bondage  —  to  me  it  is  an  inspi- 
ration to  follow  this  idea  of  divine  power  and  purpose,  which 
the  Creed  inherits  from  the  Catechism,  as  it  feels  its  way 
along  till  it  finds  the  gateway  of  universal  Atonement, 
through  whicli  it  pours  its  now  free  and  invigorating  current. 
The  current  which  runs  through  the  Creed  is  Calvinism. 
The  Creed  widens  its  banks.  And  the  natural  culmination 
of  the  Calvinism  of  the  Creed  lies  to  my  mind  in  the  very 
hope  of  which  I  am  chiefly  called  in  question,  the  hope 
which  I  reverently  entertain  without  equivocation  and  with- 
out excuse,  that  God  according  to  the  eternal  purpose  which 
he  purposed  in  Christ,  will  see  to  it  that  every  soul  comes 


277 

into  some  real  relation  to  Christ's  atoning  sacrifice  before 
any  sonl  passes  into  the  eternal  condemnation.  And  in  the 
name  of  the  Calvinism  of  the  Creed  I  protest  against  the 
contention  of  those  who,  reaching  in  some  other  way  a  like 
conclusion,  who  are  indignant  if  a  theology  with  a  narrower 
conclusion  is  imputed  to  them,  do  yet  charge  me  with  being 
heterodox  toward  the  Creed,  if  I  believe  that  God  is  saving 
•such  as  are  being  saved  in  the  way  of  consistent  Calvinism 
and  of  orthodox  Christianity. 

I  have  used  the  latter  term,  orthodox  Christianity,  ad- 
visedly. For  as  I  believe  the  philosophy  of  those  who  deny 
the  possibilit}^  of  a  Christian  probation  to  all  men,  leads 
away  from  orthodox  Christianity.  If  there  be  any  in  these 
days  who  accept  the  dogma  of  the  universal  perdition  of  the 
race  outside  Christianity,  these  are  removed  from  an}^  interest 
or  concern  in  existing  controversies.  But  among  those  who 
refuse  to  accept  the  dogma,  there  can  be  but  two  parties, 
those  who  look  upon  man  as  the  subject  of  redemption, 
and  therefore  accessible  in  some  way  and  at  some  time  to 
the  motives  of  redemption,  and  those  who  look  npon  man 
as  having  a  sufficiency  of  motive  in  himself  under  the  light 
of  nature,  and  under  the  work  of  the  Spirit  independent  of 
the  cross  of  Christ.  Can  there  be  an}'^  doubt  as  to  which  of 
these  theories  is  the  more  closely  related  to  Calvinism  and 
which  to  Unitarianism  ?  Can  there  be  any  doubt  toward 
which  the  Creed  of  the  Seminary  inclines  ?  If  Andover 
Seminary  was  established  to  oppose  and  counteract  any  in- 
fluence it  was  tliat  of  Unitarianism.  For  this  object  the 
more  extreme  parties  in  orthodoxy  were  willing  to  sink  their 
differences  and  unite.  This  is  an  historic  fact  which  none 
will  dispute.  Now  I  do  not  charge  upon  those  who  hold  the 
theory  of  salvation  under  the  light  of  nature  that  they  are 
Unitarians,  but  I  do  wish  to  suggest  to  you  that  in  their  ea- 
gerness to  use  any  and  all  arguments  to  combat  the  theory 
of  a  Christian  probation,  they  are  making  themselves  exceed- 
ingly familiar  with  the  old  time  arguments  of  Unitarians  in 
regard  to  Christian  Missions.  And  I  wish  to  suggest  further 
that  in  the  impending  conflict  in  this  country  between  Chris- 


278 

tianity  and  Naturalism  it  is  of  some  consequence  which  way 
the  influence  of  Andover  counts.  The  present  controversy 
may  seem  provincial.  It  is  called  so  by  some  who  have  not 
discovered  its  larger  bearinsrs.  But  it  is  the  door  through 
which  New  England  theology  is  to  enter  in  and  take  its  part 
in  the  contention  to  which  I  have  referred,  the  contention 
between  Christianity  and  Naturalism.  And  my  study  of  the 
Creed  convinces  me  that  Andover  has  in  hand  a  weapon  of 
exceeding  keenness  and  power  if  its  edge  is  not  turned  in 
the  very  opening  of  the  conflict. 

My  second  answer  has  to  do  with  my  official  relation  to 
the  Creed.  I  am  a  teacher  of  Homiletics.  It  is  my  duty  to 
instruct  in  regard  to  the  subject-matter  and  the  method  of 
preaching,  and  show  how  the  truth  can  be  made  the  instru- 
ment of  conviction  and  persuasion  in  bringing  men  to 
Christ. 

/  ansiver  then  in  the  second  place  that  the  method  of  the 
theology  which  is  called  in  question  best  satisfies  the  require- 
ments of  the  Creed  in  respect  to  the  conduct  of  my  profess- 
orship. I  am  called  upon  in  that  Creed  to  teach  the  truth 
in  opposition  to  all  errors  which  are  "  hazardous  to  the  souls 
of  men."  To  me  this  is  the  most  serious  part  of  the  Creed. 
Even  in  the  enumeration  of  errors  which  gives  to  the  Creed 
a  somewhat  belligerent  tone  one  detects  the  earnestness  and 
scope  of  its  intention.  It  was  this  part  of  the  Creed  which 
chiefly  arrested  my  attention  when  examining  it  with  a  view 
to  subscription.  And  the  terms  of  my  subscription,  accord- 
ing to  the  testimony  which  I  have  given  you,  were  in  these 
words  —  "  The  Creed  which  I  am  about  to  read,  and  to  which 
I  shall  subscribe,  I  fully  accept  as  setting  forth  the  truth 
against  the  errors  which  it  was  designed  to  meet."  How 
was  I  to  carry  out  the  terms  of  my  subscription?  How  was 
I  to  fulfil  the  intention  of  the  Creed?  The  question  was 
one  of  method.  I  tried  to  answer  it  according  to  my  experi- 
ence. I  came  to  my  professorship  after  a  pastoral  service  of 
twelve  years.  The  two  communities  in  which  my  pastorates 
were  served  gave  me  ready  and  full  access  to  the  thoughts 
of  men,  especially  to  the  thoughts  of  men  in  their  scepticism 


279 

and  oppositions  to  Christianity.     And  under  the  study  which 
this  intercourse  gave  me   I  discovered  that  error  has  two 
means  of  livelihood.     A  given   error  lives  because  of  the 
truth  in  it.     No  error  is  all  error.     And  it  lives  because  of 
the  error  in  the  truth  which  opposes  it.     Error  thrives  upon 
all  insincerities  and  exaggerations  in  the  holding  of  truth. 
Mohammedanism,  to  take  a  remote   example   of  the  errors 
which  I  am  to  oppose,  lives  upon  the  truth  which  inheres 
in  it,  the  truth  of  God  in   His  unity  and  sovereignty :    a 
truth  so  profound  and  vital  that  it  is  impossible  for  any 
but  the  purest  type  of  Christianity  to  live  beside  it :  a  truth 
which  makes  it,  in  the  presence  of  an  impure  Christianit}^ 
a  perpetual  "scourge  of  God."     Take  now  an  error  speci- 
fied in  the  Creed  which  is  close  at  hand  and  most  involved 
in  the   present   controversy,   that   of   Universalism.      Upon 
what  does  Universalism  rely  for  its  increase?     Not  simply 
upon  the  truths  which  it  holds,  for  most  of  these  are  held 
in  common  with  the  Evangelical  denominations.     Universal- 
ism thrives  upon  the  errors  of  orthodoxy,  upon  all  exagger- 
ated, untenable,  insincere  assertions  of  the  orthodox  faith. 
My    complainants    charge    "  Progressive    Orthodoxy "    with 
teaching  toward   Universalism.     What   is    their   alternative 
under   the    Creed?      The    interpretation    which    they   have 
sought  to  put  upon  the  Creed  to  counteract  this  tendency  is 
to  be  seen  in  their  use  of  the  clause  respecting  those  who 
are  effectually  called  as  in  this  life  partaking  of  justification, 
adoption  and  sanctification.     What  must  this  clause  say  to 
be  of  use  to  them  ?     Why  this,  that  those  only  who  do  in 
this  life  share   in   the  results  of  effectual   calling,  justifica- 
tion,  adoption,  sanctification    and   the   like,   are    effectually 
called,  that  is  saved:  all  others,  including  the  mass  of  the 
heathen,  and,  by  logic,  all  infants  are  lost.     Now  if  this  is 
the  true  interpretation  of  the  Creed  it  is  to  be  taught.     I  am 
to  teach  my  pupils  to  preach  it.     Suppose  they  do  preach  it ; 
what  better  means  can  they  take  to  build  up  Universalism  ? 
Is  this  the  way  to  meet  that  error  ?     What  is  the  intellectual 
difficulty  which  Universalism  seeks  to  meet  and  solve  ?     I 
have  not  found  many  men  who  disbelieved  in  future  punish- 


280 

ment.  I  have  not  found  it  difficult  to  gain  a  response  from 
any  congregation  when  preaching  upon  this  doctrine.  The 
intellectual  difficulty  does  not  lie  in  the  doctrine  itself,  fear- 
ful as  it  is,  but  in  the  injustice  and  inequalities  of  appli- 
cation which  attach  to  it  under  some  representations  of  it. 
The  state  of  the  public  mind  in  respect  to  this  doctrine  of 
future  punishment,  so  far  as  I  have  observed,  is  precisely 
like  that  which  existed  fifty  years  ago  in  respect  to  the  doc- 
trine of  election.  Men  were  not  then  in  revolt  against  the 
sovereignty  of  God.  They  were  in  revolt  against  the  nar- 
row and  arbitrary  application  of  it.  They  are  in  revolt 
to-day  against  a  like  narrow  and  arbitrary  application  of  the 
Divine  justice  ;  they  are  in  revolt  against  the  assertion  of  a 
dogma,  which  assigns  the  greater  part  of  the  human  race  to 
perdition  without  the  opportunity  of  accepting  or  rejecting 
its  Redeemer. 

This  much  for  the  Creed  on  its  apologetic  side  as  related 
to  the  pulpit.  I  am  more  concerned  with  the  Creed  on  its 
evangelistic  side,  for  the  great  end  which  it  has  in  view  is 
the  conversion  of  men  under  the  proclamation  of  the  gospel. 
But  here  it  is  charged  that  "  Progressive  Orthodoxy  "  takes 
away  the  urgency  of  the  gospel,  that  it  changes  the  accent 
of  the  gospel,  in  the  emphasis  which  it  naturally  lays  on  the 
present.  To  which  I  reply  that  the  view  there  set  forth 
ought  to  produce,  and  does  produce  when  accepted,  precisely 
the  opposite  effect.  Why  is  the  preacher  able  to  say  to  men, 
"Now  is  the  accepted  time."  "  Now  is  the  day  of  salvation"? 
Is  it  not  because  of  the  offer  of  salvation  which  has  gone  be- 
fore? Suppose  a  missionary  to  go  up  and  down  Africa  and 
without  first  offering  Christ  to  men  to  say  to  them  "  Now  is 
the  accepted  time  !  "  what  meaning  would  his  words  convey? 
Words  take  their  meaning  from  their  connection.  It  is  the 
incoming  of  Christianity,  the  offer  of  salvation,  which  puts 
such  a  meaning  into  the  "  now  "  of  men's  lives.  So  the  Bap- 
tist as  he  saw  the  Jewish  skies  beginning  to  flush  under  the 
dawn  of  Christianity  cried  out  with  a  new  meaning,  "  Repent, 
the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  at  hand."  So  Peter  at  Pentecost 
standing  in  the  shadow  of  the  cross,  and    beside   the  open 


281 

grave  of  Christ,  could  say  to  men  with  such  result  as  fol- 
lowed, "  Repent  and  be  baptized  every  one  of  you  for  the 
remission  of  sins."  And  so  Paul  at  Athens,  proclaiming  a 
risen  Christ  could  declare  that  the  times  of  ignorance  God 
had  overlooked,  but  now  he  commandeth  all  men  every- 
where to  repent.  We  are  so  familiar  with  the  call  to  repent- 
ance that  we  forget  that  it  assumes  the  gospel.  Herein  lay 
the  irrelevancy  of  all  the  passages  quoted  by  Dr.  Dexter  from 
the  sermons  of  the  early  New  England  divines  to  prove  their 
opinion  upon  the  question  of  a  future  probation.  They  all 
assumed  that  their  hearers  had  now  the  full  opportunity  of 
accepting  Christ  and  therefore  there  would  be  no  other  and 
better  one,  an  inference  with  which  we  are  in  full  agree- 
ment. Herein  too  lay  the  significance  of  the  sermon  in- 
troduced by  Dr.  Wellman  into  his  argument,  in  which  he 
tried  to  show  how  those  who  believed  in  the  possibilities  of 
men  in  Christ  because  of  their  vital  relation  to  him  even  in 
their  sin,  would  preach  to  sinners.  Listening  to  that  sermon, 
even  under  its  unsympathetic  statement  of  the  idea,  I  forgot 
for  the  time  the  argument,  I  became  indifferent  to  the  irony, 
I  felt  the  truth.  So  I  try  to  teach  men  to  preach  Christ  to 
their  fellow-men  so  that  they  can  say  to  them,  now,  and  now 
only,  is  the  accepted  time ;  for  now,  you  have  your  possibili- 
ties in  Christ ;  now  your  decision  is  full  and  final. 

Now  am  I  right  or  am  I  wrong  in  this  conception  of  the 
Creed  as  related  to  preaching?  I  ask  your  opinion.  I  want 
to  know  in  some  authoritative  way  whether  or  no  this  is 
heterodoxy.  I  ask  for  no  charitable  construction  of  the 
Creed  in  any  other  than  the  legal  sense  of  the  term.  I  want 
to  know  what  its  working  construction  is.  I  want  to  know 
how  I  am  to  handle  the  creed  in  my  endeavor  to  train  men 
to  preach  the  truth,  whether  they  are  dealing  with  error,  or 
whether  they  are  dealing  with  the  glorious  imperatives  of  the 
gospel. 

I  conclude  this  personal  statement  with  a  brief  reference 
to  the  changes  which  have  taken  place  since  my  official  con- 
nection with  the  Seminary.  I  came  to  Andover  in  1880. 
That  was    two  years  before   the   present  disturbance.     My 


term  of  service  covers  the  transition  from  what  is  called  the' 
old  to  what  is  called  the  new.  The  term  new  departure  is 
not  our  term.  Two  years  before  the  election  of  Dr.  Newman 
Smyth  to  the  chair  of  Theology,  that  is  in  the  year  1880, 
the  class  entering  the  Seminary  numbered  ten.  The  year 
following,  1881,  the  entering  class  numbered  live.  If  charges 
are  brought  against  the  present  administration  of  Andover, 
tending  to  show  its  decline,  let  care  be  taken  in  the  matter 
of  dates.  To-day  there  are  forty-eight  undergraduate  stu- 
dents at  Andover,  —  this  does  not  include  fourth  year  men  or 
fellows  —  giving  the  Seminary  the  second  place  in  numbers 
among  the  four  Congregational  Seminaries  of  New  England 
and  if  I  am  not  mistaken  the  second  place  among  the  Con- 
gregational Seminaries  in  the  country  in  the  number  of 
regular  students.  And  during  these  years  of  suspicion  and 
opposition  the  graduates  of  the  Seminary  have  passed  with- 
out exception  into  the  service  of  the  churches.  They  all  fill 
honored  pastorates  in  New  England  and  throughout  the 
country.  Meanwhile  I  know  of  no  function*  of  the  Seminary 
which  has  been  reduced.  I  know  of  no  relation  to  the 
churches  which  has  been  broken,  not  even  that  relation 
which  allows  the  return  to  the  Seminary  of  gifts  of  money. 
During  the  past  year  not  less  than  eighty  thousand  dollars 
have  been  added  intelligently  to  the  funds  of  the  Seminary. 
Andover  is  furnishing  to-day  as  always  men  for  the  estab- 
lished pastorates,  for  arduous  and  difficult  service  on  the 
frontier ;  she  has  her  quota  of  men  knocking  and  in  waiting 
at  the  doors  of  the  American  Board.  So  far  as  I  can  dis- 
cover as  an  alumnus  the  Andover  that  is,  is  in  spirit  and  in 
method  and  in  result  the  Andover  that  was.  The  true  con- 
tinuity, the  real  succession  is  there,  and  there  along  the  line 
of  present  development,  I  most  assuredly  believe  that  the 
true  continuity,  the  real  succession  will  give,  under  any  and 
all  possible  contingencies,  the  Andover  of  the  future.  If  I 
did  not  believe  this  in  the  loyalty  of  my  heart  as  an  alumnus 
of  the  Seminary,  I  should  not  for  a  moment  remain  in  its 
official  service.  Indeed  Mr.  President  I  may  say  without 
affectation  that  as  this  hearing  has  proceeded  my  chief  interest 


283 

and  concern  has  changed.  I  came  here  anxious  to  vindicate 
my  rights  in  my  present  holding  of  truth  under  the  Creed 
of  the  Seminary.  It  is  for  you  to  judge  whether  the  vindi- 
cation has  been  made.  But  my  greater  anxiety  in  your 
decision  is  for  the  Seminary  itself.  A  right  is  a  right  in 
respect  to  any  man  and  his  work.  But  what  are  the  inter- 
ests of  five  men  as  compared  with  the  interests  of  an  institu- 
tion. I  agree  with  the  position  of  the  complainants  which 
subordinates  our  personal  and  professorial  interests  to  those 
which  are  higher.  I  have  asked  for  no  charitable  construc- 
tion of  the  Creed  in  behalf  of  our  teachings.  I  ask  for  no 
kind  of  charity  in  dealing  with  our  personal  interests. 

But  for  the  Seminary  my  thought  is  more  urgent.  Under- 
neath any  rights  which  inhere  in  my  professorship,  I  am 
conscious  of  the  assertion  of  the  deeper  and  inalienable  rights 
which  belong  to  me  as  an  alumnus  of  Andover,  and  as  such 
I  venture  to  ask  in  my  anxiety  —  what  is  to  be  its  future  ? 
I  ask  it  in  the  name  of  its  past.  Who  has  the  right  to  affirm 
of  the  past  of  any  time  that  it  is  conservative  and  not  pro- 
gressive? Who  has  the  right  to  say  this  of  Andover  in  the 
light  of  its  history?  The  men  who  founded  Andover  builded 
well,  consciously  well,  but  they  builded  even  better  than  they 
knew,  and  I  believe  that  they  to-day  rejoice  that  they  builded 
better  than  they  knew  —  that  the  principles  which  they  forced 
into  the  Creed  were  wider  and  more  far  reaching  than  they 
dared  to  conceive. 

I  ask  in  the  name  of  a  great  number  of  living  and  work- 
ing alumni,  many  of  whom  are  in  intellectual  sympathy 
with  its  current  theology,  and  many  more  in  sympathy  with 
its  working  principles  and  its  general  position. 

I  ask  in  the  name  of  the  natural  constituency  of  tjie 
Seminary,  among  the  young  men  in  our  colleges  and  churches, 
whose  decision  touching  Andover  awaits  your  decision. 

And  yet,  even  in  behalf  of  these  interests^  no  more  than 
in  behalf  of  my  own,  do  I  dare  to  ask  for  charity;  for  I 
have  learned  to  believe  that  when  great  interests  are  at  issue 
between  man  and  man,  and  the  hearts  of  men  are  quick, 
the  fairest  thing  on  the  face  of  the  earth  in  the  eyes  of 
all,  is  justice  unadorned. 


STATEMENT   OF   PROFESSOR   GEORGE   HARRIS. 


May  it  please  your  Reverend  and  Honorable  Body  : 

My  object  in  addressing  3^0 u  is  to  explain  in  part  my 
reasons  for  assenting  to  the  Seminary  Creed  when  I  was 
inaugurated  in  1883,  with  my  reasons  for  continuing  to  assent 
to  it,  and  to  add  a  correction  of  certain  misapprehensions 
which  appear  to  exist  rehitive  to  the  doctrine  of  Atonement 
as  it  is  discussed  in  Progressive  Orthodoxy.  As  I  first  took 
the  Creed  after  the  present  theological  controversy  began 
my  relation  to  it  was  a.ssumed  at  the  outset  in  the  full  light 
of  nearly  all  the  objections  which  have  been  urged  during 
this  hearing. 

When  it  was  proposed  to  me  to  become  Abbot  Professor 
of  Christian  Theology  in  the  Seminary,  I  was  engaged  in 
the  active  duties  of  the  pastorate  in  Providence  and  had  no 
intention  of  changing  either  the  form  or  the  place  of  my 
Christian  service.  I  was  acquainted  with  the  issues  which 
had  been  raised  by  the  election  of  Rev.  Newman  Smyth  to 
the  same  professorship,  but  had  not  made  a  thorough  exam- 
ination of  the  Aiidover  Creed.  Before  the  Trustees  took 
action  I  studied  the  Creed  and  Statutes  with  more  careful- 
ness. When  I  began  this  study  I  was  by  no  means  confident 
that  I  could  give  a  sincere  assent  to  them  nor  was  I  certain 
that  I  could  subscribe  to  the  Westminster  Shorter  Catechism 
with  the  qualifications  of  the  Creed,  as  the  Abbot  Professor 
is  required  to  do.  My  attention  was  first  given  to  th^  doc- 
trines which  are  now  considered  most  important  and  concern- 
ing which  wide  differences  of  opinion  prevail,  —  the  doctrines 
of  the  Bible,  the  Person  and  Work  of  Christ,  and  Escha- 


285 

tology.  I  was  at  once  favorably  impressed  with  the  breadth 
of  statement  on  these  doctrines.  Great  facts  are  given  but 
no  specific  theories  are  proposed.  For  example  I  found  that 
the  Creed  goes  no  farther  than  to  indicate  the  religious  func- 
tion of  the  Bible  and  that  it  distinguishes  the  Word  of  God 
from  the  Scriptures  or  writings  which  contain  it.  Although 
I  held  that  every  part  of  the  Scriptures  in  connection  with  the 
whole  is  vitally  related  to  the  Divine  Revelation  it  conveys, 
yet  it  was  at  once  evident  that  no  theory  of  a  verbally  in- 
spired or  of  an  infallible  Book  free  from  imperfections  in  every 
respect  could  be  required.  The  Word  of  (xod  is  not  the  very 
same  thino;  with  the  words  of  men  into  which  it  has  been  ex- 
pressed.  I  saw  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Creed  is  identical  with 
the  doctrine  of  Paul  as  stated  to  Timothy.  "  Every  Scripture 
inspired  of  God  is  also  profitable  for  teaching,  for  reproof,  for 
correction,  for  instruction  which  is  in  righteousness ;  that 
the  man  of  God  may  be  complete,  furnished  completely  unto 
every  good  work."  The  field  of  fact  is  left  opeu  to  inquiry 
in  order  that  investigation  may  discover  the  relation  of  divine 
and  human  elements  in  the  Sacred  Scriptures. 

The  doctrine  of  the  Person  of  Christ  I  found  expressed  in 
the  well-known  and  generally  accepted  statement  of  the 
Symbol  of  Chalcedon  than  which  a  better  formula  has  not 
been  framed  concerning  the  fact  of  the  union  of  two  natures 
in  one  person.  The  union  of  divine  and  human  in  Christ  is 
generally  admitted  to  present  the  most  difficult  problem  of 
theology,  and  when  I  heard  one  of  the  complainants  argu- 
ing that  problem  as  against  our  views  in  thirteen  propositions 
I  entertained  for  the  moment  the  pious  wish  of  one  of  the 
scholars  of  the  Reformation  who  near  the  end  of  his  life  said 
that  he  should  welcome  a  change  of  worlds  for  two  reasons, 
one  that  he  might  comprehend  the  union  of  the  two  natures, 
the  other  that  he  might  be  delivered,  to  use  his  very  lan- 
guage, from  the  rabies  theologorum. 

The  doctrine  of  Atonement  I  could  not  fail  to  see  is  stated 
in  a  general  form  and  with  complete  reserve  as  to  what  is 
called  the  philosophy  of  Atonement.  It  emphasizes  the  fact, 
the  object,  and  the  extent  of  Atonement  made  by  the  suffer- 


286 

ings  and  death  of  Christ,  but  the  onl}'  approach  to  a  theory  is 
the  declaration  that  Christ  exercised  the  priestly  office. 

The  doctrine  of  Eschatology,  as  stated  in  the  Creed 
presented  no  difficulty  except  that  the  language  in  which 
the  fate  of  the  wicked  is  described  I  found  to  be  somewhat 
more  expressive  of  physical  suffering  than  other  Scriptural 
language  which  I  myself  should  have  selected  to  express  the 
same  belief;  namely,  the  final  and  irreversible  doom  of  those 
who  are  incorrigibly  wicked.  I  assumed  that  the  framers  of 
the  Creed  held  opinions  on  that  subject  somewhat  more  ma- 
terialistic than  the  opinions  which  are  held  at  present.  At 
that  time,  as  I  have  already  stated  in  my  testimony,  I  had 
reached  no  settled  conclusion  concerning  God's  dealing  with 
those  to  whom  the  gospel  is  not  presented.  It  then  seemed 
to  me  that  the  Scriptures  touch  that  question  only  inciden- 
tally, and  that  they  give  no  unmistakable  utterance.  I  had,  as 
Bushnell  used  to  put  it,  hung  the  question  up  in  my  mind.  I 
did  not,  however,  discover  that  the  Creed  required  one  to 
hold  the  distinct  opinion  that  no  person  who  is  deprived  in 
this  life  of  the  ordinary  means  of  grace  can  have  any  other 
opportunity  of  salvation.  The  Creed  seemed  to  me  to  be 
treating  Eschatology  and  all  other  doctrines  on  the  basis  of  a 
received  gospel  and  of  man's  duty  and  destiny  in  view  of  the 
fact  that  he  has  the  gospel.  Although  I  had  not  then  ac- 
cepted the  opinion  for  which  I  am  now  blamed  I  did  not  un- 
derstand that  I  must  definitely  reject  it.  One,  that  is,  could 
at  least  be  Agnostic  concerning  the  intermediate  state  of  those 
who  do  not  have  the  gospel,  since  the  Creed  says  nothing 
about  it.  If  I  had  then  known  what  I  now  understand  to  be 
the  opinion  of  my  colleague  in  the  Stone  professorship,  which 
amounts  to  a  confession  of  ignorance  on  the  subject,  I  should 
not  have  supposed  that  the  Creed  requires  him  to  go  farther 
than  that.  If  the  Creed  obliges  one  to  hold  an  absolute  and 
exhaustive  negative  concerning  God's  dealing  with  heatlien 
nations  I  could  not  have  assented  to  it,  nor  could  I  assent 
now.  I  understand  my  accusers  to  maintain  that  the  Creed 
imposes  the  opinion  that  for  all  human  beings  without  any 
exception  whatever  there  is  no  opportunity  of  salvation  but 


287 

that  which  is  given  in  the  earthl}^  life.  I  slioiihl  not  have 
dreamed  of  ascertaining  the  rehation  of  the  Creed  to  the 
possibility  of  Christian  probation  for  the  heathen  by  surmising 
what  the  Founders  ivould  have  thought  if  the  question  had 
been  presented  to  them.  I  think  there  would  have  been  a 
variety  of  answers,  and  that  some  of  them  would  have  said 
they  did  not  know.  I  supposed  that  the  only  proper  course 
is  to  bring  given  opinions  concerning  which  the  Creed  is 
silent  into  the  light  of  the  principles  or  essential  doctrines  of 
the  Creed,  and  in  such  a  relation  to  reach,  if  it  were  possible, 
a  conclusion.  I  turned  to  the  Catechism,  which  as  some  have 
held,  dominates  the  Creed,  and  discovered  that  it  is  entirely 
silent  concerning  the  fate  of  the  wicked,  even  of  those  who  do 
have  the  gospel.  I  also  believed,  as  I  subsequently  declared  to 
the  Visitors,  that  under  the  Creed  there  is  liberty  to  hold  the 
opinion  that  those  who  do  not  have  the  gospel  in  this  life  may 
have  it  in  the  life  to  come.  I  was  also  aware  that  their  decis- 
ion in  the  case  of  Rev.  Newman  Smyth  covered  this  opinion. 
I  had  never  believed  that  any  man  has  a  second  probation 
under  the  gospel,  and  in  this  respect  agreed  heartily  with  the 
opinions  of  the  Founders  —  as  I  agree  now. 

I  then  turned  to  other  portions  of  the  Creed  concerning 
original  sin,  election,  natural  ability,  the  covenants,  etc.  It 
was  not  till  then  that  difficulties  arose.  As  a  theory  of  moral 
heredity  the  doctrine  of  Federal  Headship  was  repugnant  to 
me.  The  distinctions  of  natural  and  moral  ability  seemed  to 
me  metaphysical  refinements,  to  which  I  did  not  care  to  com- 
mit mj^self,  although  my  judgment  of  them  is  now  more  favor- 
able. These  and  kindred  clauses  pertaining  to  man,  and  not 
the  clauses  which  embodv  revealed  truth  concerninfj  God, 
were  to  me  the  defective  portions  of  the  Creed.  It  was  not 
the  theology,  but  the  psychology  and  anthropology  of  the 
Creed  before  which  I  hesitated.  I  remembered  indeed  that  the 
only  instructor  in  theology  I  ever  had,  my  distinguished  pred- 
ecessor in  the  Abbot  professorship,  who,  as  I  knew,  had  had 
long  practice  in  taking  this  very  Creed,  I  remembered  that  he 
poured  derision  and  ridicule  on  the  doctrine  of  Federal  Head- 
ship, and  that  he  declared  the  covenants  of  grace  and  redemp- 


288 

tion  to  be  figurative  and  poetical  expressions,  in  order  to 
reach  the  conclusion  that  no  ohjecLion  could  he  made  against 
a  figure  of  speech.  Still,  I  must  decide  for  myself,  and  at 
length  I  reached  the  conclusion  of  common  sense,  that  these 
statements  stand  for  essential  facts  and  doctrines ;  that  Fed- 
eral Headship  signifies  the  doctrine  of  depravity  and  moral 
heredity  as  including  the  entire  race,  that  theories  of  ability 
and  inability  signify  man's  responsibility  and  opportunity 
under  the  gospel,  that  the  doctrine  of  election  signifies  that 
the  individual's  confidence  of  salvation  does  not  rest  merely 
on  liis  own  purpose  of  yesterday,  and  that  it  is  certain  God 
will  redeem  to  himself  a  holy  people  ;  and  all  of  these  opin- 
ions were  real  to  me.  That  is  to  say,  I  accepted  the  sub- 
stance of  doctrine  represented  by  these  statements,  a 
substance  which  in  several  cases  was  to  me  so  vital  and  solid, 
that  in  comparison  the  statements  of  the  Creed  seemed  to  be 
but  the  shadow.  I  felt,  sir,  as  it  is  said  some  of  the  Puritans 
who  lived  before  the  Westminster  Confession  was  framed  felt 
witli  regard  to  the  phrases  of  the  thirty-nine  articles  which 
they  considered  too  lax,  that  I  could  take  these  inadequate 
statements  of  the  Creed  with  "a  godly  interpretation."  How- 
ever, I  could  not  be  entirely  satisfied  without  submitting  my 
difficulties  to  the  Board  of  Visitors,  and  having  the  benefit 
of  their  advice  and  judgment.  The  result  was  an  agreement 
that  the  Creed  should  be  taken  as  expressing  substantially 
the  system  of  truth  taught  in  the  Holy  Scriptures. 

It  is  noticeable,  gentlemen,  that  the  charges  most  urgently 
pressed  b}^  the  complainants  do  not  touch  opinions  which  are 
covered  by  specific  and  clear  statements  of  the  Creed,  but  only 
opinions  concerning  doctrines  which  the  Creed  introduces  in 
the  most  general  terms.  The  weight  of  this  accusation  bears 
on  our  views  of  the  Bible,  Atonement,  and  Eschatology 
concerning  which  the  Creed  is  indefinite  and  reserved.  At 
other  points  it  would  have  been  much  easier  to  argue  dis- 
agreement. That  is  to  say,  the  doctrines  selected  are  those 
which  happen  just  at  present  to  be  most  in  dispute,  and  it  is 
evident  we  are  opposed  not  so  much  because  on  these  doc- 
trines we  are  antagonistic  to  the  Creed,  but  rather  because 


289 

our  opinions  differ  from  the  opinions  of  our  accusers.  Such 
difference  we  do  not  for  a  moment  deny. 

After  my  confirmation  by  your  Board,  the  Creed  passed 
almost  entirely  out  of  my  thouglits.  I  remained  through 
the  winter  with  my  parish,  and  at  the  end  of  four  months 
was  dismissed  by  Council.  Then  followed  the  preparation 
of  an  Inaugural  address,  the  fitting  up  of  a  house  at  Andover, 
and  also  a  growing  and  appalling  sense  of  what  I  had  under- 
taken as  a  teacher  of  Christian  theology.  I  confess  to  you, 
sir,  that  at  times  I  was  profoundly  thankful  that  the  Seminary 
was  reduced  in  numbers  and  that  my  first  year's  course 
■  would  be  heard  by  only  a  handful  of  students. 

In  addition  to  the  heavy  burdens  which,  as  I  often  felt,  I 
had  unwisely  assumed,  I  was  made  aware  at  the  time  of  my 
inauo-uration  of  conditions  which  would  make  my  work  still 
more  arduous.  It  then  appeared,  in  the  discussions  of  the 
only  public  and  regularly  called  meeting  of  the  Alumni 
which  within  the  last  four  years  has  considered  the  theologi- 
cal status  of  the  Seminary,  that  a  determined  opposition  was 
to  be  expected.  It  was  not  known  that  any  of  the  new 
professors,  or  indeed  that  any  member  of  the  entire  faculty, 
save  one,  entertained  hope  for  the  unevangelized  heathen. 
But  we  were  not  even  to  have  a  fair  opportunity  to  prove 
ourselves.  The  impressions  I  then  received  from  intimations 
an^  public  threats  have  been  abundantly  verified.  There 
have  been  petty  insinuations,  and  constructions  offered  which 
if  they  wei'e  not  misrepresentations  were  astonishing  mis- 
understandings. The  Seminary  was  few  in  numbers  as  we 
took  it  from  a  former  administration,  and  we  had  no  expecta- 
tion, with  so  many  untried  teachers,  of  large  additions  at  the 
outset,  yet  a  journal  edited  by  one  of  the  complainants  con- 
descended to  make  a  calculation  which  by  reckoning  in 
lecturers,  retired  professors,  and  even  the  librarian,  showed 
that  to  each  instructor  in  Andover  Seminarx'^  there  was 
in  attendance  one  student  and  five-sevenths  of  a  student. 
Although  our  growth  has  not  been  rapid,  for  no  efforts  have 
been  spared  publicly  or  privately  to  turn  students  away  from 
us,  similar  calculations  were  not  made  last  year,  nor  has  atten- 


290 

tion  ever  been  as  distinctly  called  in  that  quarter  to  the  con- 
siderable growth  which  the  Seminary  has  had.  I  have  been 
tempted,  and  have  sometimes  yielded  to  the  temptation,  to  re- 
view every  sentence  of  mine  which  would  be  printed  to  ascer- 
tain if  by  any  i^ossibility  the  opponents  of  the  Seminary  could 
construe  it  to  our  disadvantage.  I  have  not  dared  at  times 
(I  may  have  been  too  timid)  to  trust  an  article  as  a  whole, 
and  have  modified  or  omitted  sentences  which  had,  as  I 
thought,  some  point,  lest  advantage  should  be  taken  of  a  turn 
of  expression.  Possibly  some  of  the  vagueness  of  which  my 
accusers  complain  may  be  due  to  such  revisions. 

I  mention  all  this  as  part  of  my  experience  in  the  Seminary, 
and  to  remind  you  that  opposition  did  not  begin  with  the 
appearance  of  Progressive  Orthodox}'^  in  1885,  nor  with 
articles  in  the  "  Andover  Review"  for  April  and  May  1886. 

During  the  last  five  months  T  have  become  better  in- 
formed in  respect  to  the  circumstances  under  which  the 
Seminary  Creed  was  formulated,  and  as  must  be  true  of  all 
in  attendance,  I  also  have  learned  during  the  progress  of 
this  hearing  not  a  little  that  was  not  known  before.  I  have 
learned  from  the  paper  read  Fiiday  by  Dr.  Dexter,  or  rather 
have  had  new  illustrations  of  the  fact,  that  the  founders  had 
in  view  the  condition  and  destiny  of  men  in  Christendom, 
under  the  gospel.  I  also  judge  from  that  paper  that  the  motive 
of  fear  was  then  worked  in  too  large  as  it  now  is  worked,  ac- 
cording to  my  judgment,  in  too  small  proportion.  It  has 
also  been  made  clear  to  me  that  the  original  union  included 
parties  which  differed  as  widely  as  our  accusers  differ  from 
ourselves.  The  difference  was  perhaps  even  wider,  for  univer- 
sality of  Atonement  as  against  limitation,  and  free  agency  as 
against  inability  meant  at  the  time  and  still  mean  contrasts  as 
great  as  any  which  exist  in  this  present  controversy.  I  have 
learned  that  the  founders  and  their  friends  drove  in  chaises, 
wrote  precisely  worded  letters,  were  not  above  some  log- 
rolling, tried  to  influence  one  man  through  another  man,  to 
get  at  merchants  of  Newburyport  through  their  minister, 
that  they  suspected  the  motives  of  opponents  and  used  rather 
harsh  language  towards  them,  that  they  were  men  of  like  pas- 


291 

sions  with  ourselves,  that,  tliere  was  more  of  what  we  call 
human  nature  in  them  than  in  their  Creed,  but  also  that 
they  were  eager  for  union  and  were  willing  to  make  proper 
concessions,  that  they  had  for  their  time  remarkable  breadth 
of  view,  above  all  that  they  had  the  courage  to  put  vital 
principles,  of  the  consequences  of  which  they  were  not  afraid, 
into  their  union  creed.  They  did.  not,  I  believe,  understand 
how  much  is  involved  in  the  universality  of  the  person  and 
atonement  of  Christ,  nor  in  the  freedom  and  rationality  of 
man  in  accordance  with  which  he  is  saved  or  lost.  But  they 
ventured  out.  Those  principles  and  doctrines  of  revelation 
gained  a  place  in  the  Creed.  They  did  not  know,  we  do  not 
know,  how  large  results  are  involved  in  those  truths  of 
Divine  rev^elation.  And  the  fact  has  been  that  while  some  of 
their  statements  about  man  have  lost  in  importance,  till  they 
seem  to  us  an  almost  outgrown  metaphysic  and  ethic,  the  re- 
vealed truths  concerning  God  and  his  ways  with  man,  which 
are  higher  than  our  thoughts,  have  enlarged  in  the  appre- 
hension of  their  descendants  and  are  to  enlarge  more  and 
more  by  reverent  study  of  God's  works  in  creation,  providence 
and  redemption,  by  clearer  knowledge  of  the  Bible,  and  by 
the  deepening  spiritual  experience  which  believers  gain  in 
their  "  minds  and  hearts." 

I  have  also  examined  the  relation  of  Creed  and  Catechism, 
a  relation  in  which  I  am  the  only  living  person  who  has  a 
directly  responsible  interest,  and  have  come  to  a  conclusion 
which  I  believe  to  have  been  expressed  by  my  predecessor, 
that  in  the  case  of  the  Abbot  Professor  a  legal  reference  to 
the  Catechism  is  appropriate,  but  that  the  Creed  determines 
the  sense  in  which  those  portions  of  the  Catechism  shall  be 
taken  which  are  found  in  both  instruments.  I  am  not  able 
to  understand  the  satisfaction  my  colleagues  on  the  Associate 
foundation  take  in  their  freedom  from  the  Catechism,  even  as 
interpreted  by  the  Creed,  for  with  the  exception  of  the  doc- 
trine of  limited  atonement,  which  the  Creed  corrects,  I  con- 
sider the  Westminster  Catechism,  as  a  doctrinal  formulary, 
superior  to  the  Andover  Creed. 

One  point  has  perhaps  been  overlooked  by  the  complainants. 


292 

The  Catechism  teaches  that  the  world  was  made  in  the  space 
of  six  days.  There  is  no  doubt  in  my  mind  that  the  West- 
minster Divines  meant  by  that  144  hours.  The  statement  is 
not  modified  by  the  Creed.  But  I  do  not  believe  that  the 
world  was  created  in  six  solar  days.  I  believe  that  the  uni- 
verse was  created  in  no  time.  As  Augustine  said,  the  world 
was  not  created  in  tempore^  but  cum  tempore.  Or,  if  by 
creation  is  meant  the  time  from  the  appearance  of  matter  to 
the  appearance  of  man,  I  should  prefer  to  assume  millions 
rather  than  even  thousands  of  years.  Nor  have  we  yet  done 
with  the  consequences  which  come  in  with  a  recognition  of  the 
time  required  for  the  evolution  of  the  existing  order,  since 
this  change  of  opinion  may  prove  to  involve  essential  doc- 
trines. 

We  may  expect  our  accusers  next  to  turn  their  atten- 
tion to  the  Presbyterian  body,  for  the  clergymen  and  theo- 
logical professors  of  that  denomination  take  the  Catechism 
without  the  modifications  of  a  later  Creed,  yet  many  of  them 
hold  to  the  universality  of  atonement. 

On  the  whole,  more  careful  study  of  the  origin  of  the 
Creed,  to  which  this  trial  has  invited  me  has  not  substantially 
changed  my  understanding  of  it.  Neither  have  my  opinions 
substantially  changed.  I  have  not,  let  me  hope,  stopped 
thinking,  even  if  premiums  have  been  offered  to  encourage 
cessation  of  thought.  Neither,  let  me  also  hope,  have  I 
ceased  to  receive  the  light  which  God  gives  to  those  who 
honestly  seek  the  truth.  My  changes  of  doctrinal  view  have 
been  in  respect  to  proportion,  emphasis  and  clearness.  I  do 
find  it  easier  to  reconcile  the  significance  and  scope  of  atone- 
ment with  the  opinion  that  the  knowledge  of  it  will  be  given 
to  all  men  before  the  final  judgment  than  with  the  opinion 
that  the  light  of  nature  is  essentially  the  knowledge  of  Christ, 
or  with  the  opinion  that  all  knowledge  of  God  in  Christ,  ex- 
cept that  which  is  given  in  this  life,  is  withheld  from  the 
perishing  heathen.  My  difficulty,  sir,  is  with  the  alterna- 
tives. I  only  say  that  upon  the  hypothesis  which  I  enter- 
tain some  serious  objections  disappear,  and  that  it  harmonizes 
certain  essential  doctrines  of  the  gospel  with  the  Providence 


293 

of  God,  but  tliat  it  is  of  secondary  rather  than  primary  value, 
in  the  sense  that  it  is  an  inference  from  essential  doctrines 
rather  than  itself  an  essential  doctrine.  I  would  also  say  that 
if  the  Creed  requires  me  to  hold  definitely  that  no  member  of 
the  unevancjelized  nations  has  other  knowledgje  of  God  for  his 
salvation  than  that  which  he  gains  in  this  life,  I  desire  to  be 
emancipated  from  such  a  creed  at  the  earliest  possible  mo- 
ment. But  I  do  not  interpret  your  former  decision  as  shut- 
ting one  up  to  such  a  conclusion.  I  understand  that  the 
Creed  requires  no  more  than  the  essentials  of  faith  as  given 
in  other  evangelical  symbols.  In  our  own  denomination, 
council  after  council  has  decided  that  the  opinion  I  hold  on 
the  probation  of  the  heathen  does  not  override  any  essential 
article  of  faith. 

The  most  serious  charge  which  has  been  brought  against 
me  is  in  my  judgment  to  my  opinions  on  the  Atonement.^ 
The  gospel  in  its  very  essence  is  the  redemption  of  sinful 
man  through  Jesus  Christ,  and  to  be  in  error  concerning  it  is 
more  reprehensible  than  to  believe  that  the  Bible  contains  some 
blemishes  incidental  to  the  human  media  through  which 
its  truth  was  given,  or  to  hold  a  certain  opinion  concerning 
God's  grace  to  the  heathen.  I  do  not  propose  to  discuss  the 
doctrine  but  to  correct  some  misapprehensions.  As  I  listened 
to  the  paper  which  was  devoted  chiefly  to  that  topic,  I  per- 
ceived that  while  it  condemned  my  view  it  indicated  the 
view,  and  apparently  the  only  view  which  the  writer  consid- 
ers correct,  or  tenable  under  the  Creed.  I  observed  that  he 
understands  the  Creed  to  be  committed  to  the  so-called  gov- 
ernmental theory  of  Atonement.  As  the  reading  proceeded, 
the  ideas  presented,  the  expressions  used,  the  turns  given  to 
phrases,  the  repetition  of  favorite  words  were  such  that  if  the 
voice  had  not  been  different  and  I  had  closed  my  eyes  I  should 
have  believed  myself  to  be  back  again  where  I  was  nearly 
a  score  of  years  ago  in  the  middle  class  lecture-room  at  An- 
dover  listening  to  the  Abbot  Professor  of  Theology  as  he 
gave  his  interesting  expositions  of  the  Grotian  theory  of 
Atonement.  Now  I  believe  that  theory  to  be  permissible 
under  the  Creed,  although  to  my  thinking,  since  it  finds  the 


294 

principal  effect  of  Atonement  in  the  exhibition  it  makes  to 
sinners  and  to  the  universe  of  God's  regard  for  his  law,  it  is 
in  the  last  analysis,  a  moral  influence  theory. 

But  I  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  whatever  is  true  in 
the  Grotian  or  governmental  theory  of  Atonement  is  included 
in  the  presentation  of  the  subject  in  Progressive  Orthodox3^ 
It  is  stated  on   page  57   that  the  sufferings  and  death  of 
Christ  realize  God's  hatred  of  sin  and  the  righteous  authority 
of  law,  and  that  therefore  punishment  need  not  be  exacted. 
This  line  of  reflection  \vas  not  followed  out  because,  as  stated 
in  the  article,  it  is  so  familiar.     "  Its  meaning  is  "  says  the 
book  "that  God  cannot  be  regardless  of  law  nor  indifferent 
to  sin  in  saving  man  from  punishment."     That  is  the  pith 
of  the  governmental  theory.     Then  comes  the  passage  urged 
so  emphatically  in  the  complaint.     "  It  must  be  confessed  that 
it  is  not  clear  how  the  sufferings  and  death  of  Christ  can  be 
substituted  for  the.  punishment  of  sin  "  (but  we  have   not 
reached  the  end  of  the  sentence)  "how  because  Christ  made 
vivid  the  wickedness  of  sin  and  the  righteousness  of  God, 
man  is  therefore  any  the  less  exposed  to  the  consequences  of 
sin.     We  must  go  on  to  the  fact  that  Christ  makes  real  very 
much  more  than  God's  righteous  indignation  against  sin.    The 
punishment  of  sin   does  not  save  men.     It  only  vindicates 
God  and  his  law.     Christ  while  declaring  God's  righteousness 
reveals  God  seeking  men  at  the  cost  of  sacrifice."     It  is  not 
the  error  but  the  inadequacy  of  the  governmental  theory 
which  is  criticised.  . 

The  entire  discussion  is  on  the  basis  of  propitiation.  The 
fundamental  position  is  that  because  God  is  reconciled  to 
man  therefore  man  is  forgiven,  rather  than  that  God  for- 
gives by  reason  of  any  thing  that  man  does.  First  God  is 
reconciled,  then  man  repents.  Not  first  man  repents  and 
then  God  is  reconciled.  Much  space  is  given  to  an  inquiry 
concerning  the  offering  which  humanity  makes  to  God  in 
the  sacrifice  of  Christ.  I  quote  —  "  Humanity  may  thus  be 
thought  of  as  offering  something  to  God  of  eminent  value. 
When  Christ  suffers  the  race  suffers.  When  Christ  is  sor- 
rowful the  race  is  sorrowful."     Why  did  Dr.  Wellman's  quo- 


295 

tation  stop  here?  Let  us  go  on.  "Christ  realizes  what  hu- 
manity could  not  realize  for  itself.  The  race  may  be  con- 
ceived as  approaching  God,  and  signifying  its  penitence  by 
pointing  to  Christ,  and  by  giving  expression  in  him  to 
repentance  which  no  words  could  utter."  And  then  with 
but  a  sentence  between  comes  this  statement.  "  The  rep- 
resentative power  which  belongs  to  man  in  his  various  rela- 
tions comes  to  its  perfect  realization  in  Christ.  In  the  fam- 
ily, in  government,  in  business,  in  society,  representative  or 
substitutionary  relations  are  the  rule  not  the  exception. 
Much  more  has  Christ  the  power  perfectly  to  represent  us  or 
to  be  substituted  for  us,  because  there  is  no  point  of  our  real 
life  where  he  is  not  in  contact  with  us." 

But  the  most  singular  part  of  the  objection  is  the  criticism 
made  on  my  belief  in  the  union  of  Christ  with  the  race. 
Because  the  Incarnation,  which  is  the  true  humanity  of 
Christ,  helps  us  to  understand  the  Atonement,  it  is  concluded 
that  Incarnation  has  been  put  in  the  place  of  Atonement. 
The  article  was  endeavoring  to  express  the  opinion  that 
Christ's  union  with  the  race  gives  large  part  of  its  signifi- 
cance to  his  sufferings  and  death.  "  For  verily  not  of  angels 
doth  he  take  hold,  but  he  taketh  hold  of  the  seed  of  Abra- 
ham. Wherefore  it  behooved  him  in  all  things  to  be  made 
like  unto  his  brethren  that  he  might  be  a  merciful  and  faith- 
ful high  priest  in  things  pertaining  to  God  to  make  propitia- 
tion for  the  sins  of  the  people."  The  fact  that  Christ  in  his 
incarnation  became  a  real  man  in  organic  relation  with  the 
human  race  gives  the  most  profound  conception  of  his  Atone- 
ment. It  should  also  be  ol)served  that  in  the  statement  con- 
cerning incarnation  it  is  perfectly  clear  that  something  other 
is  meant  than  the  completed  union  of  Christ  with  the  believ 
er.  And  this  view  of  Christ's  proper  humanity  is  argued  to 
be  in  opposition  to  the  statement  of  the  Creed  that  Jesus 
Christ  and  he  alone  made  atonement  for  the  sins  of  all  men  ; 
as  if  "alone  "  means  that  he  has  no  organic  union  with  the 
men  for  whom  he  laid  down  his  life.  This  is  as  complete  a 
reversal  of  an  author's  meaning  as  it  was  ever  my  misfortune 
to  hear.     I  believe  the  framers  of  the  Creed  were  not  desir- 


296 

ous  of  propounding  any  theory  of  Atonement  but  of  emphasiz- 
ing its  extent. 

In  a  similar  vein  the  opinions  presented  on  man's  power 
to  repent  were  discussed.  There  is,  in  the  article  cited, 
an  inquiry  concerning  fact,  concerning  man's  real  rather 
than  his  formal  freedom.  The  word  "  cannot "  is  Paul's 
"cannot"  when  he  said,  "I  cannot  do  the  things  which 
I  would."  I  understood  that  the  view  we  are  required  to 
hold  under  the  creed,  in  the  opinion  of  our  accusers,  is  that 
man  does  all  of  his  repenting  by  his  own  unaided  power 
and  that  after  he  has  achieved  a  complete  repentance,  God 
forgives  him  on  account  of  the  sacrifice  of  Christ.  I  had 
supposed  that  man  does  his  sinning  by  his  own  unaided 
power,  but  that  when  it  comes  to  holiness,  especially  that 
radical  choice  in  which  real  repentance  largely  consists  and 
which  is  a  true  turning  to  God,  he  is  to  no  small  degree 
dependent  on  the  Holy  Spirit  of  God  taking  the  things  of 
Christ  and  showing  them  unto  him.  In  that  opinion  I  be- 
lieve I  am  in  most  substantial  accord  with  the  Seminary 
Creed. 

Some  of  these  speculations  to  which  we  have  listened  made 
the  impression  on  me  that  it  is  extremely  diflBcult  for  what 
may  be  called  the  logical  school  of  evangelical  belief  to  enter 
into  a  sympathetic  appreciation  of  the  beliefs  of  the  spiritual 
school.  I  am  prepared  to  abate  somewhat  the  feeling  that 
our  accusers  and  their  associates  refuse  to  understand  us  as 
we  mean,  for  it  has  been  borne  in  on  me  during  this  hearing 
that  they  probably  are  unable  so  to  understand  us  —  I  do  not 
intend  this  observation  as  a  slur,  but  as  the  statement  of  a 
fact.  I  do  not  deny  that  our  writings  may  sometimes  have 
been  vague.  But  I  am  satisfied  that  the  real  difficulty  lies 
deeper,  and  that  the  two  parties  or  wings  are  separated  some- 
what as  parties  in  the  church  have  been  separated  in  almost 
every  period  of  its  history  —  because  they  approach  truth  from 
opposite  sides,  or  rather  because  the  one  party  approaches 
from  without  on  the  circumference,  the  other  party  from 
within  at  or  near  the  centre.  This  difference  is  partly  con- 
stitutional and  so  cannot  be  avoided.    It  is  a  remark  made  first 


297 

I  think  by  Schelling,  although  attributed  to  Coleridge,  that 
every  man  as  to  philosophy  is  born  either  a  Platonist  or  Aris- 
totelian. It  is  equally  true  that  as  to  theology  some  men 
are  endowed  with  spiritual,  others  more  largely  with  logical 
apprehension.  It  seems  to  me  that  our  opponents  almost 
completely  fail  to  apprehend  that  movement  of  religious 
thought  of  the  last  thirty  years  in  this  and  other  countries 
which  has  been  the  advancing  supremacy  of  the  rational, 
ethical  and  spiritual  habit  of  thought  in  place  of  a  syllogistic, 
logical  and  therefore  rationalizing  habit.  If  I  had  time,  sir, 
I  should  like  to  maintain  that  the  later  developments  of  New 
England  theology  have  been  more  rationalistic  than  any 
theological  movement  since  the  Scholastic  period. 

If  I  may  be  pardoned  a  generalization  without  prefatory 
discussion  I  should  say  that  one  school  of  thought  looks  at 
truth  in  its  objective  forms  as  an  external  thing,  that  the 
re-action  is  mysticism  which  evolves  beliefs  out  of  subjective 
feeling,  and  that  the  newer  school  of  thought  in  our  own  time 
appropriates  external  truth  by  reason  and  spirit  into  living 
faiths,  uniting  the  objective  and  subjective.  Whenever  these 
contrasted  parties  have  been  contemporaneous  it  has  been 
easier  for  the  spiritual  or  intuitional  school  to  comprehend 
the  merely  logical  than  for  the  logical  to  comprehend  the 
spiritual.  Paul  understands  James  better  than  James  under- 
stands Paul.  John  understands  Peter  better  than  Peter  un- 
derstands John.  But  it  is  easier  for  the  logical  than  for  the 
other  school  to  state  its  opinions  clearly  and  to  defend  them 
adroitly.  The  Anselmic  (at  least  as  it  is  frequently  stated) 
and  the  Grotian  theories  of  Atonement,  for  example,  can 
be  put  in  a  nutshell  and  made  intelligible  to  any  one, 
and  that  is  the  trouble  with  them.  They  make  Atone- 
ment a  device  and  do  not  see  that  it  is  God  seeking 
men.  Now,  not  to  dwell  on  this  distinction,  what  is  true 
in  other  denominations  is  true  in  ours  that  one  party  is 
moved  on  by  the  deeper  currents  of  rational  and  spiritual 
impulse  while  the  other  does  not  escape  the  syllogistic  and 
formal  methods  to  which  it  has  become  accustomed. 
These  are  the  differences  which  confront  us  at  this  trial.. 


298 

That  which  to  the  one  school  is  the  vital,  organic,  real  rela- 
tion of  Christ  to  men  is  to  the  other  school  mysticism  and 
vagueness. 

The  complainants  will  say  that  this  very  state  of  things  is 
fatal  to  us  for  the  admission  is  made  that  we  are  on  another 
track  than  that  on  which  all  Christians  travelled  at  the  be- 
ginning of  this  century.  But,  on  the  contrary,  I  contend 
that  the  two  parties  which  entered  into  this  union  were 
really  unlike  in  these  very  respects.  On  the  one  side  were 
mechanical,  artificial  opinions  concerning  imputation,  repre- 
sentation, Divine  Sovereignty ;  on  the  other  side  were  char- 
acter in  freedom,  an  organic  relation  of  man  to  man,  and  of 
man  to  Christ,  and  a  purpose  of  God  running  through  his- 
tory and  revealing  him  as  the  God  of  reason  and  love. 
Then  as  now,  and  as  always,  there  were  the  contrasts  of 
legal  and  spiritual,  external  and  internal,  conservative  and 
progressive,  old  and  new.  Since  the  beginning  there  have 
been  alternations  in  the  teachings  at  Andover.  Much  of  the 
time  both  schools  have  been  represented.  Both  schools  are 
represented  there  to-day.  It  is  doubtless  well  for  the  church 
and  the  world  that  both  types  of  thought  exist  and,  to 
some  degree,  work  harmoniously  side  by  side.  The  fruitful- 
ness  of  the  great  truths  of  revelation  and  of  the  advancing 
kingdom  of  Christ  produces  various  types.  The  doctrinal 
Paul,  the  m3^stical  John,  the  ecclesiastical  James  are  re- 
flected and  reproduced  in  all  the  great  bodies  of  Christen- 
dom. If  the  tenure  of  either  party  under  the  Creed  is  in 
doubt  it  is  of  that  party  which  to-day  opposes  us,  since  the 
Creed  crowded  hard  on  formal  views  of  the  external  rela- 
tions of  men  to  each  other  and  to  Christ.  We  should  claim 
that  we  are  more  nearly  in  the  line  of  that  vigorous  move- 
ment which  enlarged  the  old  faith  into  new  meaning  and 
scope.  But  the  Seminary  Creed  was  then  and  is  still  a  plat- 
form for  the  two  principal  schools  of  evangelical  faith. 

In  my  judgment  the  particular  opinion  which  is  held  of 
the  opportunities  of  heathen  men  is  of  less  importance  than 
that  there  be  a  firm  hold  on  those  great  postulates  of  the 
gospel's  truth  from  which  we  think  our  theory  properly  pro- 


299 

ceeds.  I  could  not  as  I  have  said  assent  to  the  Creed  if  it 
compels  me  to  maintain  a  negative  concerning  the  unevange- 
lized  nations,  much  less  if  it  shuts  me  up  to  theories  of 
Atonement  and  of  the  Bible  which  have  been  represented 
here  as  alternative  to  my  own.  I  had  supposed  that  Ando- 
ver  with  its  origin,  history  and  traditions  is  a  good  institu- 
tion for  the  advancement  of  Christian  doctrine.  But  if  I 
must  try  to  squeeze  my  opinions  into  any  given  phraseology 
and  to  institute  at  every  point  a  microscopic  comparison  with 
the  Creed  I  should  decline  thus  to  sacrifice  spontaneity,  en- 
thusiasm and  progress.  You  ver}^  well  know  that  none  of  us 
care  for  the  salaries  we  receive  since  every  one  of  us  remains 
at  Andover  at  a  pecuniary  sacrifice,  but  we  do  care  for  the 
advantage  of  our  positions  to  advance  the  gospel  of  Christ, 
and  we  do  care  for  saving  the  institution  to  its  intended  uses. 
It  was  not  established  as  an  asylum  for  orthodoxy,  but  as  a 
school  for  "  increasing  the  number  of  learned  and  able  De^ 
fenders  of  the  Gospel  of  Christ,  as  well  as  of  orthodox,  pious, 
and  zealous  Ministers  of  the  New  Testament "  ;  for  the  pro- 
duction of  character  and  influence  devoted  to  the  service  of 
Christ. 

I  beg  only,  in  addition,  to  call  your  attention  to  a  phrase  in 
the  Statutes  which  has  been  misapplied.  Emphasis  has  been 
laid  on  the  direction  that  the  Creed  should  never  be  altered 
in  any  particular.  But  it  never  has  been  altered.  It  is  iden- 
tically the  same  as  at  the  first.  The  intention  was  to  prevent 
the  Trustees  or  Visitors  fi-om  repealing  any  clauses,  or  adding 
new  clauses.  There  was  to  be  no  more  legislation  on  that 
subject.  It  was  rather  a  safeguard  against  retrogression  than 
a  bar  to  advance.  The  true  inference  from  that  provision  is 
that  there  is  all  the  more  reason  for  allowing  a  liberal  and 
Christian  construction  of  a  Creed  which  is  itself  forever  un- 
changeable. 


STATEMENT   OF   PROFESSOR   EDWARD  Y.   HINCKS. 


The  work  assigned  to  me  by  the  Trustees  of  Andover  Sem- 
inar}^ with  the  concurrence  of  your  honorable  Body,  is  that 
of  interpreting  the  Scriptures.  This  task  of  interpretation 
includes  not  only  the  correct  rendering  of  the  words  of 
the  inspired  writers,  but  the  tracing  out  of  their  leading 
thoughts,  and  their  subordinate  ideas  in  their  connection  with 
these.  It  also  includes  such  discussion  of  the  historical  ques- 
tions pertaining  to  the  respective  date,  authorship,  and 
immediate  purpose  of  the  Sacred  writings  as  is  essential  to  a 
correct  understanding  of  their  contents.  In  doing  this  work 
I  have  tried  to  be  true  to  the  province  required  of  me  by  the 
constituted  authorities  of  the  Seminary  "  to  open  and  explain 
the  Scriptures  to  my  pupils  with  integrity  and  faithfulness." 

I  assume  that  an  honest  and  faithful  expositor  will  try  to 
ascertain  as  nearly  as  possible  the  meaning  of  the  language 
used  by  the  inspired  writers,  by  the  use  of  such  grammatical, 
etymological  and  illustrative  helps  as  are  at  his  command. 
I  also  take  for  granted  that  he  will  try  to  enter  into  sym- 
pathy as  far  as  possible  with  the  religious  feelings  and  motives 
which  animated  these  writers.  Having  done  this  he  will, 
I  likewise  assume,  declare  their  thoughts,  according  to  his 
best  understanding  of  them  ;  not  allowing  his  representations 
to  be  modified  by  his  own  prejudices  or  those  of  others.  Such 
unbiassed  interpretation  I  have  tried  to  give  to  those  of  the 
Scriptures  which  I  have  had  occasion  to  expound.  In  deciding 
upon  the  questions  involving  facts  relating  to  these  Scriptures, 
I  have  acted  upon  the  principle,  that  tlie  laws  which  govern 
historical  research  in  one  field  must  govern  it  in  every  field; 


301 

and  that  problems  for  which  revelation  does  not  furnish  means 
of  solution  must  he  solved  by  strictly  historical  methods. 

At  the  same  time  these  principles  of  interpretation  and 
research  have  been  employed  under  the  avowed  conviction 
that  the  Scriptures  are  a  supernaturally  given  source  of  spirit- 
ual enliglitenment  and  cany  the  absolute  authority  of  the 
Divine  Redeemer.  I  have  endeavored  to  show  that  the  divine 
communications  made  to  our  Lord  and  his  apostles,  and  those 
given  to  the  ancient  prophets  have  passed  over  into  them  and 
make  them  the  prime  source  of  religious  knowledge,  and 
the  final  test  of  Christian  belief. 

If  I  have  not  claimed  for  them  perfect  accuracy  in  all 
statements  lying  outside  of  the  sphere  of  religious  truth,  and 
if  I  have  assigned  to  them  functions  of  varying  value  in  reveal- 
ing God's  character  and  ways,  it  is  because  this  is  necessarily 
involved  in  showing  the  connection  with  Christ  in  the  light 
of  which  alone  their  authority  can  be  appreciated  and  their 
meaning  understood.  Since  God's  revelation  to  man  centres^ 
in  Him,  all  parts  of  that  revelation  must  be  seen  as  related  to 
that  centre  to  be  understood.  This  implies  the  historical 
study  of  Scripture,  its  examination  in  the  light  of  contem- 
poraneous facts  and  events.  Such  examination  implies  of 
course  the  faithful  use  of  historical  methods  and  the  honest 
recognition  of  their  results.  A  firm  conviction  that  the 
Scriptures  contain  the  religious  conceptions  of  Christ  and  his 
apostles  forbids  any  shrinking  from  such  candid  research. 
The  wish  to  keep  that  conviction  fresh  is  an  unceasing  stim- 
ulus to  pursue  it.  I  may  remind  you  that  to  this  part  of  the 
work  of  a  Biblical  teacher  in  Andover  Seminary  great  impor- 
tance was  attached  by  its  Founders  as  appears  from  Article  VI. 
of  the  original  constitution,  which  I  beg  permission  to  read. 

Article  VI.  Under  the  head  of  Sacred  Literature  shall  be 
included  Lectures  on  the  formation,  preservation  and  trans- 
mission of  the  Sacred  Volume ;  on  the  languages  in  which 
the  Bible  was  originally  written  ;  on  the  Septuagint  version 
of  the  Old  Testament  and  on  the  peculiarities  of  the  language- 
and  style  of  the  New  Testament,  resulting  from  this  versioiL 
and  other  causes ;  on  the  history  character  use  and  authority 


302 

of  the  ancient  version  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments ;  on 
the  canons  of  Biblical  criticism  ;  on  the  authenticity  of  the 
several  books  of  the  sacred  Code  ;  on  the  apocryphal  books  of 
both  Testaments;  on  modern  translations  of  the  Bible,  more 
particularly  on  the  history  and  character  of  our  English  ver- 
sion ;  and  also  critical  Lectures  on  the  various  readings  and 
difficult  passages  in  the  sacred  writings. 

While  I  have  aimed  to  present  the  Scriptures  in  their  his- 
torical and  living  connection  with  Christ,  and  thus  to  estab- 
lish for  them  a  higher  value  than  such  as  comes  from  a  purely 
formal  authority,  I  have  never  reached  conclusions  as  re- 
gards their  nature  or  their  teachings  at  variance  with  the 
Cieed  or  any  of  the  Christian  doctrines  expressed  in  it.  I 
desire  at  this  point  in  behalf  of  my  associates  and  myself  to 
correct  representations  made  by  one  of  the  Complainants  in 
his  plea,  of  the  meaning  of  certain  cited  passages  from  the 
articles  on  the  Scriptures  submitted  as  evidence  by  the 
prosecution. 

From  the  editorial  entitled  "•  The  Bible  a  Theme  for  the 
Pulpit"  the  following  sentence  (And.  Rev.  v.  409)  was 
quoted  by  him  as  proof  that  the  article  advocates  a  covert 
opposition  to  the  orthodox  doctrine  of  inspiration,  on  the 
part  of  ministers.  "A  minister  who  should  begin  to  preach 
a  series  of  sermons  about  the  Bible  by  saying  that  he  ex- 
pected to  show  that  the  notion  of  inspiration  in  which  his 
hearers  had  been  trained  was  an  erroneous  one,  would  prob- 
ably find  a  considerable  part  of  his  congregation  resolutely 
opposed  to  his  teaching  from  the  outset."  To  this  I  would 
add  the  sentence  which  follows  —  "  The  misunderstandinsr 
as  to  his  conception  of  the  Bible  created  by  his  injudicious 
remark  —  (injudicious  because  misrepresenting  the  real  nature 
of  the  proposed  teaching),  could  hardly  be  removed  by  any 
subsequent  explanations."  It  is  here  plainly  implied  that 
the  teaching  suggested  is  not  really  at  variance  with  the 
evangelical  view  of  the  Scriptures. 

The  following  sentences  which  I  will  not  stay  to  cite  make 
the  implication  yet  more  evident.  I  will  add  a  word, 
explaining  another  sentence  from  this  editorial  discussed  by 


303 

the  same  gentleman,  "  Then,  as  insph-etl  life  is  shown  ex- 
pressing itself  in  inspired  teaching, — as  for  example  the 
connection  between  Paul's  written  teaching  and  his  own 
inner  life  and  his  apostolic  work  is  traced,  or  the  a[)Ostolic 
tradition  is  shown  embodying  itself  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels 
—  the  conviction  will  gradually  be  created  that  the  Scripture 
is  the  vehicle  by  which  the  divine  revelation  is  conveyed  to 
men,  and  in  no  true  sense  the  revelation  itself."  The  word 
"  revelation  "  is  used  here  in  its  Scriptural  sense,  of  a  super- 
natural disclosure  of  truth  to  inspired  teachers.  Paul  e.g. 
says  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  that  God  revealed  his 
Son  in  him  that  he  might  preach  Him.  Paul's  epistles  bring 
the  revelation  which  he  received  to  us.  They  are  not  the 
revelation  itself,  for  it  expressed  itself  in  them.  There  are 
important  ends,  it  is  thought,  in  pointing  out  the  distinction. 
The  charge  that  it  is  derogatory  to  the  Scriptures  is  as  absurd 
as  would  be  the  claim  that  one  depreciated  Christ's  parables 
in  saying  that  they  were  the  vehicle  by  which  his  ideas  were 
conveyed  to  the  mind  of  the  people.  I  must  also  correct  the 
same  gentleman's  interpretation  of  a  sentence  belonging  to  the 
article  on  the  Scriptures  in  "  Progressive  Orthodoxy  "  (p. 
221).  "We  are  finding  out  that  the  seat  of  the  prophetic 
teaching  was  the  moral  and  religious  nature  of  the  inspired 
seer  alone."  It  was  elaborately  urged  that  this  refers  the 
teaching  of  the  prophets  to  a  purely  human  source.  Indeed 
the  word  source  was  used  as  a  synonym  for  "  seat "  in  inter- 
preting the  sentence.  But  the  claim  could  hardly  have  been 
made  if  the  sentence  had  been  read  in  its  context.  For  it 
is  preceded  by  these  words. 

''  That  conception  of  the  prophet  which  regarded  him  as 
merely  a  voice,  uttering  words  which  his  own  inner  life  had 
no  share  in  producing  is  rapidly  disappearing  before  the 
intelligent  stud}'  of  the  Old  Testament."  And  we  pass  over 
but  one  sentence  to  come  to  these  words  ..."  It  is  not  de- 
nied that  they  were  sometimes  evidently  conscious  of  receiv- 
ing special  messages  from  God.  Nor  would  we  claim  that  the 
conceptions  of  God's  kingdom  in  its  present  state  and  com- 
ing development,  given  them  by  the   Spirit,  were  so   thor- 


304     ■ 

oughly  wrought  into  their  own  thinking  as  the  apostles' 
conceptions  of  Christ  and  his  Kingdom  were  united  with 
their  own  thouglit."' 

One  more  instance  of  misrepresentation  in  the  use  of  the 
same  article  must  be  pointed  out.  The  following  words  are 
found  on  page  231. 

"  Whatever  else  comes  to  us  as  from  God  must  present  its 
credentials  to  Christ's  truth  in  our  minds  and  hearts." 

These  last  words,  it  is  said,  show  that  the  writer  recog- 
nized no  objective  divine  revelation.  But  let  me  read  the 
context. 

*'If  Christ  is  the  supreme  and  final  Revelation,  He  is  the 
test  of  all  preceding  revelation.  If  we  accept  Him  as  God's 
supreme  and  final  revelation,  we  must  bring  preceding  reve- 
lation to  this  test.  We  cannot  escape  the  process  of  compari- 
son if  we  would.  He  brings  us  his  own  conception  of  God,  of 
life,  of  duty.  It  claims  to  cover  the  whole  horizon  of  truth, 
and  demands  possession  of  every  spiritual  and  rational  faculty. 
If  we  will  have  it  as  ours  we  must  hold  it  separate  from  and 
above  every  other.  Whatever  else  comes  to  us  as  from  God 
must  present  its  credentials  to  Christ's  truth  in  our  minds 
and  hearts." 

The  two  last  sentences  are  evidently  to  be  read  in  close 
connection.  Their  obvious  meaning  is  that  if  we  will  take 
Christ's  truth  into  our  hearts  we  must  give  it  royal  authority 
over  them,  and  make  it  judge  of  every  thing  that  claims  to 
come  empowered  by  God  to  enter  them.  Not  our  notions, 
but  Christ's  truth  within  us  is  to  rule  our  itnier  being. 

The  earlier  sentences  expressly  emphasize  the  supremacy  of 
the  objective  Christian  revelation. 

I  repeat  that  I  have  been  both  in  belief  and  teaching  true 
to  ''  the  principles  of  the  Creed ; "  to  quote  words  of  Pro- 
fessor Stuart  cited  by  the  prosecution. 

I  will  frankly  admit  however  ray  belief  that  the  Creed  it- 
self gives  me  a  degree  of  liberty  in  interpreting  its  tenets. 
In  the  pledge  which  it  exacts  the  promise  "  to  open  and  ex- 
plain the  Scriptures  to  my  pupils  with  integrity  and  faithful- 
ness" precedes  that  "to  maintain  and  inculcate  the  Christian 


30o 

faith,  as  expressed  in  the  Creed  by  me  now  repeated."  That 
promise  has,  I  conceive,  especial  force  for  those  who  are 
called  to  teach  the  Bible  in  the  Seminary.  They  at  any  rate 
are  required  by  it  to  make  the  exposition  of  the  Scriptures 
"  according  to  the  best  light  God  shall  give "  them,  the 
shaping  and  paramount  principle  of  their  teaching.  They 
are  to  explain  the  Bible  with  integrity ;  giving  no  interpre- 
tations but  such  as  are  the  fruit  of  their  own  study  and  re- 
search, and  carry  their  own  conviction ;  they  are  to  explain 
it  with  faithfulness,  counting  subservience  to  human  opinion 
unfaithfulness  not  only  to  the  Scripture,  but  to  the  Seminary 
which  requires  a  fair  exposition  of  the  word  of  God.  This 
to  men  who  like  the  Founders,  regarded  the  Bible  as  the 
depository  of  divine  truth  must  have  implied  the  expecta- 
tion of  a  progressive  unfolding  of  that  truth  on  the  part  of 
the  teachers  of  sacred  literature.  It  would  have  been  absurd 
to  require  a  promise  to  "  open  and  expound  the  Scriptures 
with  integrity  and  faithfulness,"  if  the  conclusions  reached 
were  expected  to  be  absolutely  identical  with  those  already 
arrived  at  and  set  forth.  Indeed,  the  word  "  open  "  seems  to 
imply  an  advance  into  undeveloped  riches  of  divine  truth. 

If  I  am  correct  in  believing  that  the  Founders  laid  this 
promise  of  a  progressive  teaching  of  Scripture  upon  the 
Biblical  teachers  in  the  Seminary,  I  may  assume  that  they 
expected  those  teachers  to  interpret  the  creed  in  the  light 
of  that  promise.  To  claim  that  they  regarded  their  state- 
ment of  belief  as  an  absolutely  perfect  representation  of  the 
doctrinal  contents  of  the  Bible  is  to  impugn  not  only  their 
good  judgment  but  their  sincerity,  since  they  have  put  the 
Scriptures  above  the  creed  as  "  the  only  perfect  rule  of 
faith  and  practice."  To  put  such  an  interpretation  upon 
the  creed  therefore  as  would  prevent  the  teachers  in  the 
Seminary  from  keeping  abreast  of  contemporaneous  Biblical 
Scholarship  by  the  use  of  legitimate  methods  (if  such  an 
interpretation  w^ere  possible)  would  thwart  their  wishes  both 
by  making  the  Creed,  not  the  Bible  the  ultimate  test  of  the 
teaching  of  the  institution  as  well  as  the  "  only  perfect  rule  " 
of  its  professors'  belief,  and  by  robbing  its  Biblical  instruc- 


306 

tion  of  that  manifest  and  avowed  loyalty  to  the  Scriptures 
as  the  one  unquestionable  and  paramount  authority  which 
the  Founders  intended  it  should  have. 

It  is  not  meant  of  course,  that  the  several  articles  of  the 
creed  have  not  a  meaning  for  every  one  who  teaches  under 
it.  No  one  could  claim  e.g.  that  one  could  go  on  teaching  in 
the  Seminary  who  had  become  satisfied  that  the  Scriptures 
furnished  no  reason  for  believing  in  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity.  The  enactment  requiring  a  renewed  subscription 
at  the  expiration  of  each  five  years ;  —  which  recognizes  a 
necessary  movement  of  mind  engaged  in  the  study  of  divine 
truth,  provides  that  such  movement  shall  be  bounded  by  the 
great  doctrinal  lines  plainly  indicated  by  the  Creed.  I  for 
one  would  not  retain  my  position  five  years  nor  one  year, 
had  I  abandoned  any  of  the  doctrines  enunciated  there. 
But  I  do  not  think  retaining  it  inconsistent  with  the  belief 
that  the  Scriptures  may  yet  afford  the  means  of  giving  one 
or  more  of  those  doctrines  a  better  expression.  For  I  am 
sure  that  such  Biblical  teaching  as  they  exact  by  solemn 
pledge  implies  this  belief. 

I  close  by  declaring  my  full  and  hearty  belief  "  that  the 
word  of  God,  contained  in  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and 
New  Testament  is  the  only  perfect  rule  of  faith  and  prac- 
tice," and  by  denying  that  I  have  in  the  lecture-room  or  out 
of  it  made  statements  inconsistent  with  this  belief,  or  incon- 
sistent with  my  promise  to  "  open  and  explain  the  Scriptures 
to  my  pupils  with  integrity  and  faithfulness,"  to  "maintain 
and  inculcate  the  Christian  faith  as  expressed  in  the  Creed 
of  the  Seminary,"  together  with  all  the  other  doctrines  and 
duties  of  our  Holy  Religion,  so  far  as  may  appertain  to  my 
office,  according  to  the  best  light  God  shall  give  me." 


STATEMENT   OF   PROFESSOR   J.    W.   CHURCHILL. 


May  it  please  your  Reverend  and  Honorable  Board :  — 

In  filing  my  exception  to  tlie  charges  against  me  for  hold- 
ing, maintaining,  and  inculcating  opinions  that  are  contrary 
to  the  Associate  Creed  of  Andover  Theological  Seminary, 
I  desire  that  it  be  understood  as  explicitly  as  language 
can  express  my  position  that  I  am  not  seeking  to  evade 
in  the  slightest  degree  my  share  of  the  editorial  responsibility 
in  the  purpose  and  conduct  of  "  The  Andover  Review ; "  or  to 
avoid  whatsoever  consequences  may  follow  from  an  adverse 
decision  against  m}^  co-editors  upon  the  citations  from  the 
Review  as  evidence  of  teaching  and  maintaining  opinions  in 
nonconformity  to  the  Seminary  Creed.  The  fate  of  one 
editor  is  the  fate  of  all  the  editors.  Nor  do  I  wish  to  suggest 
the  inference  that  I  am  not  in  perfect  sympathy  with  the 
spirit  and  aim  that  animate  and  control  the  movement  and 
tendency  in  contemporary  religious  thought  known  as  Pro- 
gressive Orthodoxy.  I  adhere  to  the  principles  of  the  move- 
ment, although  I  do  not  accept  every  inference  from  some 
of  its  positions.  Neither  let  it  be  inferred  that  I  consider  my 
adherence  to  Progressive  Orthodoxy  as  inimical  to  the  Asso- 
ciate Creed,  which  I  conscientiously  subscribed  to  on  my  in- 
auguration into  the  Jones  Professorship  of  Elocution,  which 
I  have  since  twice  repeated  as  an  act  of  solemn  obligation  in 
the  presence  of  the  Trustees  of  the  Seminary,  and  to  which 
I  am  still  loyal  as  it  has  been  interpreted  and  administered 
for  more  than  half  a  century.  Nor  do  I  desire,  in  filing  this 
exception,  to  add  to  the  already  numerous  complications  of 
this  perplexing  public  Inquiry  into  the  Orthodoxy  of  the  ed- 


308 

itors  of  "  The  Andover  Review."  Much  less  do  I  wish  to  em- 
barrass your  reverend  and  honorable  Board  with  untimely  or 
irrelevant  demands  upon  your  attention.  Still  less  would  I 
convey  the  impression  that  I  do  not  wish,  or  that  I  ought  not, 
to  be  placed  under  your  supervision,  or  that  I  resist  any  claim 
that  your  reverend  and  honorable  Body  may  lawfully  make 
for  its  Visitorial  jurisdiction  over  the  Jones  Professoi'ship. 

But  the  question  occasionally  has  been  discussed  in  high 
quarters,  and  especially  during  the  last  few  months,  whether 
or  not  the  Jones  Professorship  is  strictly  under  the  control  of 
the  Visitors  of  the  Associate  Foundation.  In  the  Statutes 
of  the  various  Chairs  of  Instruction  that  have  been  founded 
since  the  establishment  of  the  Associate  Creed,  there  seem 
to  be  three  classes  of  conditions :  one  class,  represented  by 
the  Taylor  Professorship  of  Biblical  Theology  and  History, 
now  held  by  Professor  Taylor,  distinctly  places  the  chair 
under  the  Visitorial  supervision  of  your  reverend  and  hon- 
orable Board;  a  second  class,  represented  by  the  Stone 
Professorship  of  the  Relations  of  Christianity  to  the  Secular 
Sciences,  now  held  by  Professor  Gulliver,  distinctly  states 
the  exemption  of  the  chair  from  your  Visitorial  control ;  the 
third  class,  represented  by  the  Jones  Professorship  of  Elo- 
cution, makes  no  reference  whatsoever  to  the  relation  of  the 
chair  to  any  Visitorial  supervision. 

It  is  for  the  sole  purpose  of  permanently  determining  the 
question  of  your  Visitorial  relation  to  the  Jones  Professor- 
ship that  I  filed  my  eleventh  exception.  I  have  availed  my- 
self of  the  occasion  of  this  trial  to  submit  the  test ;  because, 
if  the  Jones  Professorship  is  not  under  your  Visitorial  juris- 
diction, then  the  complainants  have  no  case  against  me  upon 
which  your  reverend  and  honorable  Board  can  adjudicate  ;  if, 
on  the  other  hand,  it  shall  be  decided  that  the  Jones  Profess- 
orship is  under  your  Visitorial  supervision,  I  shall  cheer- 
fully conform  to  your  requirements  in  the  premises,  and  shall 
respond  to  the  charges  preferred  against  me  in  such  a  manner 
as  your  Board  shall  direct. 

Sijice  it  has  been  determined  that  it  is  advisable  for  me  to 
make  a  statement  in  connection  with  the  statements  of  my 


809 

colleagues,  I  have  thrown  together  this  morning  the  few- 
expressions  following  that  partially  ma}^  answer  the  present 
purpose  of  meeting  the  charges  preferred  against  me. 

It  will  be  remembered  by  your  reverend  and  honorable 
Board  that  in  reply  to  your  requisition  of  July  27,  1886,  to 
present  a  written  answer  to  the  original  charges  within  fif- 
teen days  that  I  conformed  to  your  requirements  within  a 
very  few  days  after  the  allotted  time.  The  reply  was  made 
before  the  indicted  professors  had  engaged  counsel  to  defend 
them  ;  but  this  fact  was  overlooked,  inadvertently,  I  am  will- 
ing to  believe,  in  the  counsel's  argument  for  the  prosecution 
in  the  case  of  my  colleague.  Professor  Smyth,  and  through 
the  omission  an  erroneous  and  injurious  impression  must  have 
been  conveyed  to  you  and  to  the  public  concerning  our  action 
in  the  early  history  of  this  case. 

You  will  also  recall  the  fact  that,  in  answer  to  the  Amended 
Charges,  there  was  presented  to  you  a  written  reply  from  each 
of  my  colleagues,  and  that  no  reply  was  sent  in  by  me,  but 
that  I  added  to  the  general  Bill  of  Exceptions  a  special  ex- 
ception claiming  that  my  Professorship  was  not  under  your 
jurisdiction.  I  withheld  my  answer  to  the  Amended  Charges 
until  I  should  learn  your  decision  on  the  point  in  question. 
Had  I  received  the  decision  before  this  Court  opened  the  case 
of  Professor  Smyth  I  should  have  sent  in  my  written  reply 
couched  in  the  same  language  that  was  employed  in  the 
replies  of  my  colleagues.  I  should  also  have  prepared  a 
more  complete  and  careful  statement  than  this,  and  of  a  dif- 
ferent character,  to  meet  the  demands  of  the  present  time 
and  place.  But,  inasmuch  as  no  decision  has  been  rendered 
upon  my  special  exception,  and  also  for  the  sake  of  brevity, 
I  ask  permission  of  your  reverend  and  honorable  Board  to 
refer  to  the  answer  of  my  colleagues  as  being  identical  with 
my  own  ;  since  what  was  common  to  those  answers  is  ex- 
pressed in  the  same  language,  and  was  discussed  and  drawn 
up  in  my  presence,  and  with  my  voluntary  co-operation  as 
being  equally  indicted  with  them. 

I  would  also  respectfully  ask  permission,  under  the  circum- 
stances, to  refer  for  ampler  defence  to  the  exposition  of  the 


310 

Seminary  Creed  as  given  by  the  Rev.  D.  T.  Fiske,  D.D.,  the 
venerable  and  honored  President  of  the  Board  of  Trustees  of 
Andover  Theological  Seminary.  I  doubt  not  that  I  can 
safely  rely  upon  your  familiarity  with  that  document.  My 
intellectual  and  moral  attitude  towards  the  Creed  is  exactly 
defined  in  Dr.  Fiske's  Exposition.  The  high  character,  theo- 
logical attainments,  wisely  conservative  temper,  and  candid 
spirit  of  Dr.  Fiske,  are  a  sufficient  guaranty  to  me  of  a  com- 
petent and  accurate  representation  of  the  Creed  in  his  account 
of  its  origin,  its  subsequent  history,  its  character,  the  signifi- 
cance of  subscription  to  it,  the  history  of  its  administration, 
and  the  source  of  responsibility  in  deciding  the  orthodoxy  of 
the  Professor  in  relation  to  the  Creed.  I  refer  to  Dr.  Fiske's 
Exposition  and  rely  upon  it,  because  its  original  intention 
was  neither  polemical  in  tone,  nor  inimical  in  its  spirit 
towards  any  individual  connected  with  the  Board  of  Instruc- 
tion or  of  Administration.  It  was  not  written  for  any  Star- 
chamber  assembly  in  secret  conclave  with  the  purpose  of 
ultimately  making  it  an  iron  heel  to  crush  the  advocate  of 
some  obnoxious  doctrine :  it  was  written  solel}^  for  tlie  infor- 
mation of  the  North  Essex  Ministerial  Association  with  which 
he  is  connected,  and  with  no  intention  of  subsequent  publica- 
tion. Dr.  Fiske's  paper  was  entirel}'  successful  in  removing 
previous  unfortunate  misconceptions,  and  conveyed  much  val- 
uable information  to  his  ministerial  associates.  That  accom- 
plished theologian,  the  late  Rev.  Raymond  H.  Seeley,  D.D.,  of 
Haverhill,  gave  it  his  cordial  endorsement.  The  Exposition 
afforded  such  general  satisfaction  that  it  was  published  at  the 
request  of  the  Association.  The  Rev.  Ray  Palmer,  D.D.,  a 
former  Visitor  of  the  Seminary,  has  declared  Dr.  Fiske's  Essay 
to  be  "a  fair  and  honest  statement  of  the  essential  facts  of 
the  case,  and  well  adapted  to  set  the  public  —  those  who 
wish  to  be  set  right  —  in  a  position  to  judge  of  the  whole 
matter."  He  affirms  that  the  view  of  the  Creed,  so  clearly 
and  ably  presented,  and  the  meaning  of  subscription  to  it 
was  that  which  he  himself  entertained  when  he  subscribed 
to  it.  "•  It  was  that,"  he  adds,  "of  Drs.  D wight  and  Smith 
when  they  became  Visitors."     (See  Prefatory  Note  to  Dr. 


311 

Fiske's  Exposition  :  Cnpples,  Upham  &  Co.,  Boston,  Dec.  17, 
1886.) 

Upon  my  election  to  office  in  the  Seminarj^  I  consulted  my 
honored  professor  of  Sacred  Rhetoric  concerning  the  manner 
in  which  the  Creed  was  to  be  taken,  for  I  had  often  heard  it 
spoken  of  as  an  iron-clad  affair  of  a  past  age,  which  had  mostly 
lost  its  force  and  was  only  loosely  binding  upon  the  teachers 
of  the  present.  Professor  Phelps  answered:  "  Tou  must 
take  the  Creed  as  the  rest  of  us  have  taken  it  —  in  its  historic 
sense,  and  for  substance  of  doctrine."  His  explanation  of 
those  terms  (which  I  do  not  now  recall  in  his  language)  sat- 
isfied me  that  an  honest  man  could  take  the  Creed  honestly  ; 
but  it  also  disclosed  to  me  the  fact  that  the  Creed  required 
interpretation. 

Accepting  Dr.  Fiske's  exposition  as  my  vade  meeum  in  the 
interpretation  of  the  Creed,  I  affirm  my  deliberate  and  con- 
scientious conviction  that  if  the  Creed  had  the  inherent 
power  to  effect  the  union  of  conflicting  schools  of  religious 
thought  in  the  days  of  its  origin,  it  has  the  very  same  inher- 
ent power  in  the  present  day  to  prevent  division  and  separa- 
tion. 

I  cannot  suppose  that  my  personal  views  on  the  Ethics  of 
Creed-Subscription  are  of  the  slightest  importance  to  your 
reverend  and  Honorable  Board.  Nevertheless,  they  are  of 
vital  importance  to  me  ;  and  I  find  myself  in  such  hearty  accord 
with  the  principles  of  Creed  subscription  as  enunciated  by 
Professor  Austin  Phelps,  that  I  venture  to  make  reference  to 
the  chapter  in  one  of  his  works,  —  "  My  Portfolio,"  and  en- 
titled the  "Rights  of  Believers  in  Ancient  Creeds."  Many 
of  the  illustrations  in  that  clear,  comprehensive,  and  conser- 
vative discussion  are  drawn  from  the  Seminary  Creed  and  the 
history  of  its  administration  (see  p.  41  et  seq.').  I  may  safely 
assume  your  acquaintance  with  Professor  Phelps's  views  upon 
this  important  topic.  I  refer  to  Dr.  Fiske  and  to  Professor 
Phelps  as  reflecting  more  perfectly  and  more  vividly  my  own 
views,  and  for  the  purpose  of  brevity  at  this  late  stage  of 
the  proceedings. 

In  this  manner,  also,  I  express  my  sincere  reverence  for  the 


312 

framers  of  the  Creed  in  their  strenuous  efforts  to  secure  a 
true  expression  of  theological  doctrine.  As  time  goes  on, 
my  veneration  for  those  wise  and  able  men  is  deepened,  and 
my  confidence  in  the  greatness  of  their  purpose,  and  my 
admiration  for  their  achievement,  are  confiimed.  Their  elabo- 
rate formulary  is  not  an  antiquated  relic,  but  is  an  impressive 
and  living  memorial  of  their  insight  into  religious  Truth,  and 
of  their  theological  prowess.  They  were  guided  by  the  prom- 
ised Sj)irit  of  Truth,  who  has  never  been  absent  from  the 
church  in  its  work  of  creed-construction,  and  who  is  still 
in  the  hearts  of  men  that  are  called  upon  to  interpret  the 
religious  symbols  of  a  former  time. 

I  am  glad  to  express  my  sj^mpathy  with  the  doctrinal  con- 
clusions at  which  they  arrived.  Every  theological  and  Scrip- 
tural/ac^  they  registered  in  that  Creed  is  true,  and  always  will 
be  true.  Their  skill  in  putting  those  truths  into  logical  and 
vital  relations  is  remarkable,  and  it  remains  a  noble  expres- 
sion of  the  tenets  of  consistent  Calvinism.  But  who  shall 
call  it  a  final  expression  of  truth  ?  It  contains  truth  so  far 
as  it  goes,  but  it  does  not  exhaust  it.  Every  Creed  is  a 
monument  of  man's  imperfection.  I  believe  this  Creed,  but 
I  never  can  relinquish  my  right  to  think  ujion  theological 
topics  independently  of  the  Creed,  and  outside  of  its  terms, 
provided  that,  in  the  use  of  my  conclusions,  I  am  not  in- 
harmonious with  a  sound  interpretation  of  the  Creed  or 
antagonistic  to  it.  The  responsibility  of  subscription  ulti- 
mately rests  upon  the  Professor  himself.  Any  man  likely  to 
be  elected  to  any  chair  in  the  Seminary  is  supposed  to  be 
intelligent  and  honest  enough  to  decide  for  himself  whether 
he  can  or  cannot  conscientiously  subscribe,  or  maintain  his 
subscription,  to  the  Creed;  and  no  man  has  a  right  to  go 
behind  the  subscriber's  conscience,  or  try  to  displace  it  by 
substituting  some  other  man's  interpretation. 

In  saying  this,  I  mean  to  imply  the  inadequacy  of  this,  and 
any  existing  Creed,  to  cover  all  the  subjects  of  theological 
inquiry  and  discussion  that  constantly  emerge  in  the  gradual 
development  of  the  aspects  of  Truth.  Religion  is  a  life,  the 
life  of  God  iu  the  soul  of  man ;  but  Theology  is  the  Science 


313 

of  Religion.  Theology,  with  all  the  sciences,  is  bound  to 
regard  changing  data,  and  constantly  must  be  passed  under 
review  for  revision  and  re-adjustment.  There  is  new  light 
in  Philosophy,  new  light  in  History,  new  light  in  Science, 
nev.^  light  in  Criticism,  that  is  constantly  breaking  forth.  If 
fresh  light  in  any  of  these  departments  of  thought  and  en- 
deavor that  are  organically  related  to  the  facts  and  truths  of 
theological  science  can  be  allowed  to  flash  out  in  Yale  Semi- 
nary or  in  Union,  —  and  it  is  flashing  there  —  then  I  want 
its  brightness  in  Andover,  to  make  the  Creed  still  more  an 
illuminating  power;  and  through  Andover  to  shine  in  upon 
the  spiritual  darkness  of  the  nations.  If  a  narrow  construc- 
tion of  the  Creed  is  to  act  as  an  extinguisher,  or  as  a  min- 
imizing agent  in  denying  me  the  benefits  or  the  use  of  any 
new  light,  I  shall  see  to  it  that  I  do  not  suffer  the  condemna- 
tion of  those  who  love  darkness  rather  than  light. 

Wonder  has  often  been  expressed  that  a  Professor  of  Elo- 
cution should  be  accused  of  heretical  teaching  of  Theology. 
My  offence  arises  in  the  fact  that  I  am  a  responsible  co- 
editor  of  the  heretical  "Andover  Review."  I  have  already 
expressed  my  willingness  to  share  every  thing  that  editorial 
responsibility  carries  with  it.  As  editors  we  work  and  ex- 
press ourselves  in  the  plural  and  not  in  the  singular.  In 
explanation  of  my  arraignment  it  has  been  said  in  pleasantry 
that  I  have  been  indicted  for  giving  to  the  enunciation  of 
"  Sheol "  a  circumflex  inflection  as  expressing  doubt.  Not 
so  ;  on  the  contrary,  and  all  jesting  apart  at  a  time  of  seriouS' 
ness,  I  enunciate  "  Sheol,"  and  teach  my  pupils  to  enunciate 
it,  and  every  word  symbolizing  a  revealed  fact  of  solemn 
import,  with  the  firm,  downward  inflection  expressive  of  the 
afiirmation  of  the  reality  of  a  positive  personal  conviction. 
Not  one  of  my  colleagues  is  so  poor  a  theologian  or  so  un- 
skilful a  speaker  as  to  confound  a  downright  inflection  with 
a  circumflex. 

I  have  not  yet  found  the  term  "  Pi'obation  "  a  necessity 
for  mv  theolosrv  or  mv  view  of  life,  here  or  hereafter.  I  do 
not  find  it  in  the  Creed,  excepting  as  it  refers  to  Adam's  pro- 
bation in  his  relation  as  the  federal  head  of  the  race ;  nor 


314 

is  it  a  biblical  word,  although  the  idea  is  admitted  to  be 
scriptural.  I  have  been  accustomed  to  regard  this  earthly 
scene  and  God's  relation  to  it,  not  as  a  court-room,  nor  even  a 
school-room,  but  as  a  scene  of  moral  education  in  which  the 
Father  of  Spirits  is  training  the  nations  and  individuals  com- 
posing His  great  human  family  for  the  Eternal  Life  beyond 
life.  As  I  think  I  stated  in  my  former  answer  to  you,  I  cannot 
believe  that  every  soul's  life  in  the  Fatherhood  of  God  will 
have  its  moral  discipline  ended  with  its  earthly  career;  but, 
undoubtedly,  there  are  souls  existing  both  in  this  world  and 
the  next  that  forever  will  resist  the  Divine  purpose  and 
means  in  discipline.  But  it  is  not  needful  that  I  should 
enlarge  upon  this  view  in  order  to  guard  it,  or  to  defend 
it,  or  to  show  its  harmony  with  the  Creed.  The  spiritual 
results  in  holy  character  in  the  great  multitude  of  the  Re- 
deemed in  the  Eternal  World  are  the  same  in  my  view  of 
the  future  life  that  the  advocates  of  a  continued  probation 
for  the  mass  of  the  evangelically  Unprivileged  hope  to  see 
gloriously  realized. 

I  know  the  history  of  the  so-called  Andover  hypothesis 
of  Continued  Probation,  from  the  first  syllable  of  its  utter- 
ance to  the  present  hour.  I  have  been  in  most  intimate 
relations,  day  in  and  day  out,  year  in  and  year  out,  with  its 
supporters.  I  know  a  hundred  times  better  than  those  who 
have  misunderstood  and  consequently  have  misrepresented 
them,  the  spirit  and  manner,  the  limitations,  lights  and 
shades,  and  the  conditions  of  development  in  which  the 
hypothesis  has  been  maintained.  But  little  value  may  be 
attached  to  a  personal  opinion  ;  nevertlieless,  the  circum- 
stances of  this  public  statement  make  it  proper  for  me  to  say 
that,  inasmuch  as  I  am  convinced  that  this  liypothesis  does 
not  militate  against  the  doctrines  of  the  Depravity  of  Man, 
the  Necessity  of  Regeneration,  the  Trinity  of  the  Godhead, 
the  Universal  Atonement  of  Christ,  or  the  Eternity  of 
Future  Rewards  and  Punishments,  which  doctrines  are  au- 
thoritatively declared  to  be  the  distinguishing,  essential,  and 
pivotal  doctrines  in  the  system  of  Truth  which  the  Seminary 
Creed,  and  all  the  great  historic  confessions  affirm,  —  there- 


315 

fore,  in  view  of  such  harmony  with  these  tests  of  Orthodoxy, 
I  earnestly  claim  for  my  colleagues  their  liberty  of  opinion, 
teaching,  and  discussion  concerning  this  hypothesis.  More 
than  this :  I  believe  that  there  is  Reason  and  Scripture  in  it. 
In  making  answer  in  this  special  form  demanded  by  the 
present  exigency  of  the  case,  I  trust  that  I  have  again 
affirmed  my  sincere,  reverent,  and  hearty  loyalty  to  the 
elaborate  symbol  that  I  am  called  upon  to  sign  as  a  Pro- 
fessor in  Andover  Theological  Seminary.  Whatsoever  minor 
diversities  of  formal  expression  or  of  individual  interpreta- 
tion my  colleagues  or  myself  may  demand  as  our  rights  as 
believers  in  the  Creed,  I  sincerel}^  believe  that  they  are  held 
in  accordance  with  sound  and  recognized  principles  of  Creed- 
Subscription.  I  sincerely  believe  that  such  modifications  of 
belief  or  statement  do  not  impair  the  integrity  of  doctrine 
as  expressed  in  our  authoritative  standard.  They  are  simply 
changed  aspects  of  unchangeable  truths.  I  sincerely  believe 
that  the  intention  of  the  Framers  of  this  Creed  was  to 
make  forever  secure  the  teaching  of  a  large,  an  enlarging, 
and  a  tolerant  Orthodoxy ;  that  they  were  intent  upon  mak- 
ing the  teaching  in  the  Seminary  a  synonym  for  a  true,  con- 
sistent, and  catholic  theology.  Moreover,  I  sincerelj^  and 
intelligently  affirm  that  there  exists  in  the  religious  com- 
munity a  Avide-spread  and  positive  judgment,  that  organized 
opposition  to  competent  and  conscientious  teaching  on  the 
doctrinal  basis  laid  by  the  Founders  of  the  Seminary,  is 
inconsistent  with  a  true  liberty  of  teaching  within  the  limits 
of  the  Creed  ;  and  that  such  organized  opposition  is  sub- 
versive of  the  stability  of  true  theology,  —  a  permanence  that 
must  ever  be  conditioned  upon  freedom  of  theological  teach- 
ing and  discussion  as  an  inalienable  right  under  any  creed 
of  the  protestant  faith. 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 

Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 

^     14Nov^62'^C            1 

IN  STACKS 

OCT  31  1962 

i 

^^   51962 

1 

1 
1 

■ 

(C70!>7slO)476B                                         Bitkeley                 ^ 

BV4C76 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


